NSA Director speaks at hacker conference to 'lay out the facts' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Medevilae;41676303]It's about the same as what they were giving at DEFCON and similar pre-Snowden tbh[/QUOTE] In other words, equal levels of bullshit before and after, we just [I]know[/I] otherwise now. Remember, people: The 4th Amendment is a foil to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Here's why you should have something to fear even if you don't have anything to hide: You may not think anything of it right now, but imagine if you suddenly annoyed someone very powerful... let's say your name was Aaron Swartz or something. Someone who does something, right or wrong, that really ticks the feds off. So now you've pissed off the US DoJ. The US government has practically unlimited resources against you. But they aren't sure that they've got a solid case with what they've got on-hand. And so now the digging begins. They start investigating into your past, going through your records, trying to find anything, no matter how slight, weak, or old, to discredit or hurt you. Currently, violating a website's Terms of Service (e.g. signing up for Facebook when you're 11) is actually interpreted as a [I]felony[/I] under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Half of us net users violate some website's TOS in some way on a weekly basis, but nobody cares because most of these violations are harmless or at the very least hardly criminal. But when the US government has several years' worth of records pertaining to who you've been talking to, where you've been on the Internet, what you've been chatting about on Facebook when you thought nobody was watching, your personal emails, encrypted data that they've held onto "just in case" for later cracking if you turn out to be interesting..... they can paint whatever picture they want of you. [I]This[/I] is why the 4th Amendment exists, and this is what is so insidious about "if you have nothing to hide". The (disputed) words of Cardinal Richelieu come to mind: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." If you hear someone saying "if you have nothing to hide..." what they are really saying is "stop resisting the surveillance state". [QUOTE=Disotrtion;41676582]With 100% audibility there is 0% chance of abuse. The program has intense oversight, and is both constitutional and legal. And its not warrantless, to access your information they have to get a warrant from a judge.[/QUOTE] 100% auditability, and nobody caught Edward Snowden before he fucked off to Hong Kong and then Russia with fucktons of internal NSA docs. Yeah, I trust them to have a [B]0%[/B] chance of abuse. And that stuff about needing a warrant? [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295132"]You haven't been reading the news.[/URL] The oversight is laughably thin on pretty much every system we've heard about so far. FISA judges practically rubber stamp them.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41676662] And that stuff about needing a warrant? [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295132"]You haven't been reading the news.[/URL] The oversight is laughably thin on pretty much every system we've heard about so far. FISA judges practically rubber stamp them.[/QUOTE] Oh, are we citing Russia Today? [url]http://rt.com/news/putin-russia-order-evil-923/[/url]

[QUOTE=scout1;41676781]Oh, are we citing Russia Today? [url]http://rt.com/news/putin-russia-order-evil-923/[/url][/QUOTE] I appreciate your deep and insightful comment that cherrypicked one single statement from my entire post, and I'm interested to know what sort of tie you intend on wearing when you receive your Pulitzer.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41676662] 100% auditability, and nobody caught Edward Snowden before he fucked off to Hong Kong and then Russia with fucktons of internal NSA docs. Yeah, I trust them to have a [B]0%[/B] chance of abuse. And that stuff about needing a warrant? [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1295132"]You haven't been reading the news.[/URL] The oversight is laughably thin on pretty much every system we've heard about so far. FISA judges practically rubber stamp them.[/QUOTE] Snowden never worked direcly for the NSA he worked for the CIA then Booz-Allen. The documents he had were regulatory documents which outlined procedure, issued to every employee. No personal info. No queries from PRISM. 0% chance of abuse still stands. It's not a rubber stamp, they have to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that they have enough evidence to go further. How many warrants then? Not millions, not hundreds of thousands. 500. And only a handful led to an active case. The NSA is kept in check by the Senate, WH, and Inspector General. Only the misinformed would assume the NSA has sole authority. You distrust the government simply because they wear a uniform and are in charge, but they also took and oath to the Constitution and our Republic.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41676956]I appreciate your deep and insightful comment that cherrypicked one single statement from my entire post, and I'm interested to know what sort of tie you intend on wearing when you receive your Pulitzer.[/QUOTE] It destroys your entire idea of warrantless surveillance so yeah, it did its job

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;41676967]Snowden never worked direcly for the NSA he worked for the CIA then Booz-Allen. The documents he had were regulatory documents which outlined procedure, issued to every employee. No personal info. No queries from PRISM. 0% chance of abuse still stands. It's not a rubber stamp, they have to convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that they have enough evidence to go further. How many warrants then? Not millions, not hundreds of thousands. 500. And only a handful led to an active case. The NSA is kept in check by the Senate, WH, and Inspector General. Only the misinformed would assume the NSA has sole authority. You distrust the government simply because they wear a uniform and are in charge, but they also took and oath to the Constitution and our Republic.[/QUOTE] Snowden has stated that he had the authority and technical capability to wiretap anyone, including the President. Policy, not technology, is the limiting factor. He stole technical documents and procedure instead of raw intelligence data because he wanted to expose [I]what[/I] the NSA can do and is doing, not reveal to a few hundred thousand random Internet users all the info that's been harvested on them. Try again. Regarding the warrants, see my link below. And, you mean the same oversight that [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304009-clapper-denied-nsa-surveillance-in-us-weeks-before-verizon-tracking-program-began-"]James Clapper lied to[/URL] and then embarrassed himself as he twice tried to backtrack and quibble his way out of being caught in a direct lie? The same White House that promised transparency before the election and then has been anything but even more opaque than before? I distrust the US government because they're proven greedy and manipulative assholes that have no qualms about doing whatever they want. I also distrust them because, as a Canadian living outside the US, [I]my rights aren't even part of the discussion[/I]. The NSA (and by extension the US government, and therefore the American people) assert the right to snoop on any data coming into or going out of US routers, even if it is simply transiting the US backbone between two international destinations. America has decided its job is to monitor the world for its own ends, and that this is controversial is a surprise? Your Jezzer avatar is absolutely perfect for representing you. [QUOTE=scout1;41677015]It destroys your entire idea of warrantless surveillance so yeah, it did its job[/QUOTE] [URL="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/"]Have at you.[/URL]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41677265]Snowden has stated that he had the authority and technical capability to wiretap anyone, including the President.[/QUOTE] He never had the authority. That's a complete lie. There are limits, there are people that check the queries. [QUOTE] Policy, not technology, is the limiting factor.[/QUOTE] Agree [QUOTE] He stole technical documents and procedure instead of raw intelligence data because he wanted to expose [I]what[/I] the NSA can do and is doing, not reveal to a few hundred thousand random Internet users all the info that's been harvested on them.[/QUOTE] Possibly true, and this proves my point that the internal query system of Prism was in no way compromised. The methods however were compromised, and that's damaging. [QUOTE]Regarding the warrants, see my link below. And, you mean the same oversight that [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304009-clapper-denied-nsa-surveillance-in-us-weeks-before-verizon-tracking-program-began-"]James Clapper lied to[/URL] and then embarrassed himself as he twice tried to backtrack and quibble his way out of being caught in a direct lie?[/QUOTE] He never lied. He is right that 1. The NSA does not target US citizens. Prism was only authorized to target foreigners. 2. It is possible that Americans communications are intercepted accidentally. 3. The NSA doesn't collect data on hundreds of millions of Americans. 4. Conducting surveillance inside US borders is not something the NSA does. Snowden's leaked documents actually support Director Clapper, you can read them in their raw form at the guardian.co.uk. [QUOTE]The same White House that promised transparency before the election and then has been anything but even more opaque than before?[/QUOTE] If the NSA reveals its methods than the methods are no longer effective. You would be hard pressed to prove the WH has become less transparent over two administrations. I think they have become more transparent. [QUOTE]I distrust the US government because they're proven greedy and manipulative assholes that have no qualms about doing whatever they want.[/QUOTE] Debatable, and your pretty clearly biased. [QUOTE] I also distrust them because, as a Canadian living outside the US, [I]my rights aren't even part of the discussion[/I]. The NSA (and by extension the US government, and therefore the American people) assert the right to snoop on any data coming into or going out of US routers, even if it is simply transiting the US backbone between two international destinations. America has decided its job is to monitor the world for its own ends, and that this is controversial is a surprise?[/QUOTE] You were part of the discussion. You have been mislead to believe that you were not. America is in alliance with a number of countries including your home nation of Canada. Your government has consented to this. And your security services actively help the NSA [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Community[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Establishment[/url] [QUOTE]Your Jezzer avatar is absolutely perfect for representing you.[/QUOTE] Top Gear, ftw.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;41677580] America is in alliance with a number of countries including your home nation of Canada. Your government has consented to this. And your security services actively help the NSA [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Community[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Security_Establishment[/url] [/QUOTE] Also known as the quadpartite pact

Facepunch ratings snowball, everyone should know that by now.

personally i like to be lied to, to my face atleast it makes me feel like the liar cares enough to lie

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;41672447]man i really hate when people pull the whole "you shouldn't be worried if you have nothing to hide" argument for things like this[/quote] Why? [quote]governments change; people in governments are still just that--people, with their own feelings, opinions, ambitions and agendas[/quote] Obviously. But what can an NSA Analyst do that could be seen as abusive? [quote]what if a few decades down the line, the government starts to become more and more oppressive, and suddenly you're finding yourself getting arrested for googling something that's deemed unacceptable to google now?[/quote] Such as what? [quote]for an example, with the whole anti-gay shitstorm that's been happening in russia recently, imagine if it got even worse, and a monitoring program such as this was used against people?[/QUOTE] How would it be used against people?

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41678983] How would it be used against people?[/QUOTE] Any surveillance program - whether it's the FBI from formation to present day, or even your local police department - could be turned on political dissidents instead of its intended purpose which would be a horrendous breach of civil rights and democracy. The military can also be turned on the civilian population (illegally as above) if the president so orders it, but we don't worry about that, though.

Here is the person saying "bullshit" for anybody who doesn't have an hour to waste. [video=youtube;nXxSfpUaJCY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxSfpUaJCY[/video]

[QUOTE=scout1;41679017]Any surveillance program - whether it's the FBI from formation to present day, or even your local police department - could be turned on political dissidents instead of its intended purpose which would be a horrendous breach of civil rights and democracy. The military can also be turned on the civilian population (illegally as above) if the president so orders it, but we don't worry about that, though.[/QUOTE] I understand your claim that they'd use it against people, but not how they would do so. Forge materials? I doubt that'd be accepted by a judge.

[QUOTE=Turing;41672352]the thing here is not that it doesn't get names and content of calls and messages, the thing is that if they want to they [B]can[/B] and they [B][I]will[/I][/B] and they have ability to listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], if you honestly believe that they won't because they're "not supposed to", then you obviously dont know how things work[/QUOTE] The FBI could wiretap anyone at any time and could listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], yet people seem to trust that they won't because they're "not supposed to". The same government has the capability to declare martial law at any time, dissolve legal representation of the people, or use the military to quell dissidents through force. There are plenty of ways the government could abuse its power, but most of them aren't considered problematic because they're illegal and can be enforced by courts.

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41680110]I understand your claim that they'd use it against people, but not how they would do so. Forge materials? I doubt that'd be accepted by a judge.[/QUOTE] How about grand juries where the evidence is kept secret?

[QUOTE][img]http://imgkk.com/i/q6se.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Wouldn't "we don't obtain NO names" mean they actually obtain them? same for the other stuff.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41680984]The FBI could wiretap anyone at any time and could listen to [B]absolutely anyone unchecked[/B], yet people seem to trust that they won't because they're "not supposed to". The same government has the capability to declare martial law at any time, dissolve legal representation of the people, or use the military to quell dissidents through force. There are plenty of ways the government could abuse its power, but most of them aren't considered problematic because they're illegal and can be enforced by courts.[/QUOTE] Declaring martial law, removing legal representation or using the military against the people would cause an uproar and absolutely destroy their credibility Listening to anyone unchecked? Not so much, as no one would check and no one would know.

Seems like if it were really all that sinister, we would not have heard about any of it, ever. It would be in the realm of tin-foil-hat-people-disappearing-in-the-middle-of-the-night conspiracy theory. Expressing concern over "what-if" scenarios can help develop meaningful dialog about the programs (and NSA in general), but rabid denouncement because of those same "what-if" scenarios is spreading the same kind of fear that built the program to begin with. Your local Judge doesn't knock on your door or give you a call every time he issues a bench warrant. The courts for this are no different. Well.. ok, a bit different in that they don't make all their warrant's public knowledge via a news paper post. (That bugs me.) But this is where the debate needs to be: What are you doing online that is so different than what you do offline? How and why does it merit any different approaches to reasonable expectations of privacy? What is law enforcement doing online that is so different than what they do offline? How and why does it merit any different approach to oversight? Folks seem to think that the net is some kind of anarchy rules zone. It's no different than mail, a conversation with your neighbor or the bathroom wall at a breakfast diner. Except that it is different. Every server log is an unfailing witness to it all. And while expressing your ideas is fine and dandy (yea 1st amendment,) your communications can also connect you with criminal activity. You think courts are gong to ignore that? HAHA.. right. I read here and all over about how wrong internet surveillance is for this reason or that, but I rarely read about anyone having an idea about how to improve it. How to mitigate the invasive feeling of it all. It has been suggested in this thread that the court could be a bit less secret... that's a good direction to go. But grabbing at the "but t..terrorists" thing and never letting go is going nowhere. It's turned into a stupid meme response to a serious issue that no one but the feds are doing anything about.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;41676967]You distrust the government simply because they wear a uniform and are in charge, [B]but they also took and oath to the Constitution and our Republic.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh yeah that totally changes everything. I forgot that nobody has ever broken an oath before. I distrust the government because they have proven time and time again that they are willing to lie to us to protect their own interests, without fear of punishment (after all, they make the laws as to what kind of lying deserves punishment). Also, regardless of what they use the information for, I don't support a government which has granted itself enough power to become authoritarian at any moment, and can do so without the knowledge of the general public.

[QUOTE=tirpider;41683665]Seems like if it were really all that sinister, we would not have heard about any of it, ever.[/QUOTE] We probably wouldn't have heard about it if it wasn't for a certain whistleblower. Let's be honest. The invasive feeling is nigh impossible to mitigate without transparency, they probably don't intend any of that.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;41683911]We probably wouldn't have heard about it if it wasn't for a certain whistleblower. Let's be honest. The invasive feeling is nigh impossible to mitigate without transparency, they probably don't intend any of that.[/QUOTE] Understandable. My inner paranoid still has a hard time believing that whistleblower is a real person though. If this super secret organization isn't above subverting civil liberties across borders, why would they be above staging a massive charade? You have to define for yourself what pledges of integrity you choose to believe in.

[QUOTE=tirpider;41683947]Understandable. My inner paranoid still has a hard time believing that whistleblower is a real person though. If this super secret organization isn't above subverting civil liberties across borders, why would they be above staging a massive charade? You have to define for yourself what pledges of integrity you choose to believe in.[/QUOTE] If you are proposing that Edward Snowden and all of the supposedly [I]highly damaging[/I] leaks that have prompted the US to do such things as [B][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23156360"]have the President of Bolivia's official plane diverted because Snowden [I]might[/I] have been on board[/URL][/B] was a false-flag psyop for the purposes of disinformation... you may wish to get your dosage adjusted. But entertaining your suggestion seriously for just one moment, that just shows to me that the US's intelligence agencies are entirely out of control and believe they're living in a Tom Clancy novel. All the more reason to get some sunlight on what the fuck they've been doing with billions of tax dollars.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41684011]If you are proposing that Edward Snowden and all of the supposedly [I]highly damaging[/I] leaks that have prompted the US to do such things as [B][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23156360"]have the President of Bolivia's official plane diverted because Snowden [I]might[/I] have been on board[/URL][/B] was a false-flag psyop for the purposes of disinformation... you may wish to get your dosage adjusted. But entertaining your suggestion seriously for just one moment, that just shows to me that the US's intelligence agencies are entirely out of control and believe they're living in a Tom Clancy novel. All the more reason to get some sunlight on what the fuck they've been doing with billions of tax dollars.[/QUOTE] Well,you can believe what I say or not, it's your head, not mine. My intent was to start moving away from the reiteration of the same frustrations over and over again. And it did well. You want to know where the money is going. This is a clear query and I wonder if it's been answered anywhere. How would we, as common people, find out about that sort of thing? Other than sketchy hacker conventions, where does a person add their input into the process of defining the boundaries for these agencies? I doubt they read web forums (for advice,) but it's all federal. Someone has a hold of a leash somewhere. And that's what needs to be approached. I like to imagine the General was sincere in the video in wanting to open a dialog. But the parrots won, so he just did the pre-selected question or 2 and went back to work. -edit Having said that, I realize where and who I am. I'm not really interested in following up on any of it, and I'm somewhat skeptical about the appropriateness of Sensationalist Headlines for anything meaningful. It was my knee jerk reaction to the same unfounded fear based reactions.. I'll just take the lazy way out and not worry about it. more stupid for me to wear.

He wanted to open a dialog, on his terms. And the current US federal intelligence community's M.O. is "radio silence".

Yep. And everyone there knew that. We all know that. But that shouldn't stand in the way of asking about the things they can discuss. Limited and redacted information is better than blind guessing in the dark.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41682920]How about grand juries where the evidence is kept secret?[/QUOTE] Why would they keep anything secret unless it's absolutely necessary? What do they gain?

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;41684801]Why would they keep anything secret unless it's absolutely necessary? What do they gain?[/QUOTE] They can lock people up with no evidence of their wrongdoing by just saying it's classified or secret when there is none.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41684875]They can lock people up with no evidence of their wrongdoing by just saying it's classified or secret when there is none.[/QUOTE] Yes, but why?

So they can conveniently get rid of people that might expose the wrongdoing of the state.