Big Brother is Watching You

[rstrong]

One thing I'm not sure you've responded to, O Really:

Suppose a European spy agency is caught doing dragnet surveillance on American phone and internet users, and tapping the phones of the top Washington politicians. And then passing on trade and political secrets to their other agencies and companies.

Does America have any right to complain? And a separate issue, should it have any right to complain?

[neoplacebo]

The "today in history" list notes that today is the day in 1952 that the NSA was born. I believe their first employee was the reporter who published the "Dewey Defeats Truman" article.

[O Really]

One thing I'm not sure you've responded to, O Really:

Suppose a European spy agency is caught doing dragnet surveillance on American phone and internet users, and tapping the phones of the top Washington politicians. And then passing on trade and political secrets to their other agencies and companies.

Does America have any right to complain? And a separate issue, should it have any right to complain?

I would expect US officials to harruumpph very loudly - shocked!, shocked, I say! heads will roll! - while not being particularly surprised other than the success of the attempt.

[O Really]

EVEN AFTER what's been uncovered you would have the NSA alone, in secret, decide what's OK, with the American people having no say. Not even Congressional or legal oversight.

Not really. Since Congressional, military, and legal oversight processes are in place, I'd like them to do their jobs better.

The problem is, they're not doing so.

Nor can one claim that having been caught over-extending their reach, NOW we'll have better oversight. .

Got it. Like when the coach is incompetent, we get different players. Or when managers can't manage, we fire the employees. Oh wait, that one really happens.

[O Really]

The "legal oversight" has been by a nearly unanimously GOP court that's been shown to be little more than a rubber stamp. That's like staffing the SEC with former Enron execs or a sex crimes unit with defrocked Catholic priests.

No problem with me in changing the members of the court, or the entire court itself. Let the Supremes appoint the members, or pull names randomly from those currently sitting on Courts of Appeal. Fine. Is there any great groundswell to boot the scoundrels out? That would be generally "no."

[rstrong]

EVEN AFTER what's been uncovered you would have the NSA alone, in secret, decide what's OK, with the American people having no say. Not even Congressional or legal oversight.

Not really. Since Congressional, military, and legal oversight processes are in place, I'd like them to do their jobs better.

The problem is, they're not doing so.

Nor can one claim that having been caught over-extending their reach, NOW we'll have better oversight. .

Got it. Like when the coach is incompetent, we get different players. Or when managers can't manage, we fire the employees. Oh wait, that one really happens.

When a player is caught taking steroids or sabotaging his team-mates, it's the player that gets penalized, not the coach. But if this keeps happening and the coach doesn't do anything about it, the coach gets fired.

When an employee gets caught embezzling, it's the employee that gets fired. But if the embezzling went on for a long time because the manager wasn't managing, then the manager gets fired and rightly so.

No-one rewrites the rules retroactively to allow steroids or embezzlement, and then lets it continue.

[O Really]

Here's a couple of interesting viewpoints...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/opinion/z ... le_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/opinion/s ... le_sidebar

[rstrong]

NIST trying to win back crypto-cred after NSA sabotage

The National Institution for Standards and Technology is one of the key players in setting standards for cryptography. Following the Snowden-leaked revelation that its standards-setting efforts had been infiltrated and sabotaged by the NSA, it is embarking on a charm-offensive to lure cryptographers back into its processes. It's reassessing all of its standards, and then conducting a public consultation on its conclusions. And they're having independent auditors to look at their process.

[O Really]

There's hope for O Really yet.

Homey don't think so.

[rstrong]

If the Watergate break-ins happened today, the neocons would declare security guard Frank Wills a traitor for harming the country by making it public.

Of course that's assuming that he'd be allowed to make it public, rather than being served with an order from the Justice Department forbidding him to talk about it. (In reality the incident made it hard to get a job in Washington. He was hounded by the press, and Howard University feared losing federal grants if it hired him. He died in poverty.)

Someone here would declare the burglaries to be justified in the name of national security and fighting terrorism.

[O Really]

I didn't care for Ervin's "simple ol' country boy" act while his Harvard Law degree hangs on the office wall, but other than that, he was certainly one of the good ones, as was Church. I don't have any problem with Senators and Congress(wo)men keeping their hands on the leash. I don't have any problem with Congressional Intelligence Committees hauling up intelligence agency honchos for the occasional flogging. I don't have a problem with Congress passing laws to make it more difficult for "Nixon" and "J.Edgar" to use the agencies for political chicanery. I do have a problem with some "Snowden" taking it upon himself to determine whether information should be disclosed and to whom, and then doing so without regard to actual or potential damage.

Regarding the change of mind article, I don't know if Snowden meets the legal definition of "traitor" or not. If the definition is limited to an act intended solely to benefit an enemy of ones country, maybe not. He seems not to care if any other country benefits. But he is certainly a betrayer, a liar (as in his entire career at NSA), and a thief.

[rstrong]

I do have a problem with some "Snowden" taking it upon himself to determine whether information should be disclosed and to whom,

If not Snowden, then who? Who could he have taken the information to, that could make that determination and would be willing to release the genuine evidence of wrong-doing?

It's pretty damn clear that the oversight system would not do so.

and then doing so without regard to actual or potential damage.

He hasn't done that. Read the article.

Washington Post: Edward Snowden is no traitor

[O Really]

I did read the article, including this part...
"...He broke the law, this is true. He has been chary with his information, but he cannot know all its ramifications and, anyway, the government can’t allow anyone to decide for himself what should be revealed. That, too, is true. So Snowden is, to my mind, a bit like John Brown, the zealot who intensely felt the inhumanity of slavery and broke the law in an attempt to end the practice. My analogy is not neat — Brown killed some people — but you get the point. I suppose Snowden needs to be punished but not as a traitor. He may have been technically disloyal to America but not, after some reflection, to American values."

[rstrong]

And then there's the overreaching in the war on drugs....

Reason.com: Don't Appear to Be Clenching Your Buttocks When Pulled Over For Not Coming to a Complete Stop or Be Tortured by Doctors: America, This is Your War on Drugs

Eckert's attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity. While officers detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed for an anal cavity search.

The lawsuit claims that Deming Police tried taking Eckert to an emergency room in Deming, but a doctor there refused to perform the anal cavity search citing it was "unethical."

But physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City agreed to perform the procedure and a few hours later, Eckert was admitted.

While there...

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

Turns out the warrant was invalid and all of the medical procedures were performed illegally and with no consent from the patient.

And yes, of course, the Plaintiff has been billed thousands of dollars for the illegal, invasive and painful medical procedures provided at the request of law enforcement.

This is what can happen when you don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

[rstrong]

None of the above would be necessary if Americans did what Clapper wanted, and never leave the house without an NSA tracking plug inserted up there. Because 9/11.

[rstrong]

According to a federal lawsuit, Eckert didn't make a complete stop at a stop sign coming out of the parking lot and was immediately stopped by law enforcement.

If the stop sign was on private property I'm not sure the traffic stop was even legal.

On the other hand if he crossed a sidewalk coming out of the parking lot, then even without a stop sign, not stopping would be illegal in many places.

[O Really]

Do you agree with the writer that Snowden is loyal to American values?

.

No, but I left the entire paragraph intact so as not to be rightfully charged with creative editing. Certainly he was loyal to some values of some Americans. Not this American. Of course, anything can be watered down to fit something high-minded and worthy. If I wanted to do that, I'd start (abbreviated version) with something like, "would you agree that dishonest government officials who refuse to follow court decisions and Congressional directives should be removed from office"? Yes! "And if those officials violated the law, would you agree they should be prosecuted?" Hell, yes! And if an employee discovered criminal acts, would you agree s/he should report it?" Sure! "And if it was the employee's bosses who were the suspected criminals, would you agree the employee should report the criminal acts somewhere else?" Oh yes! etc....
But when real details are put in place of platitudes, one often finds the devil hiding.

[rstrong]

If I wanted to do that, I'd start (abbreviated version) with something like, "would you agree that dishonest government officials who refuse to follow court decisions and Congressional directives should be removed from office"? Yes! "And if those officials violated the law, would you agree they should be prosecuted?" Hell, yes! And if an employee discovered criminal acts, would you agree s/he should report it?"

Meanwhile back in reality, every point you make above has been shown to be utterly inapplicable in Snowden's case.

The NSA was ALLOWED to break the law. When a previous whistle blower reported it - the illegal dragnet wiretapping a few years earlier - not only was the NSA allowed to continue, not only were they not prosecuted, but the law was retroactively changed after the fact to legalize it.

They've been caught lying outright to Congress. There's not even a hint of plans to prosecute Clapper & Co.

NO PART of what you wrote applies to the NSA.

"And if it was the employee's bosses who were the suspected criminals, would you agree the employee should report the criminal acts somewhere else?"

Define "somewhere else." Certainly not anyone in the oversight process; for them anything the NSA does is by definition not a criminal act.

Go to the FBI? They'd quickly get orders to drop or indefinitely delay the case. Because national security. He'd almost certainly be barred from talking about it with anyone, including his lawyer. And the instant he presented any evidence, they'd arrest him for having it.

For all we know there could be whistle blowers who DID go to the oversight folks. Or the FBI. Or a random Congressman. But we probably wouldn't know about it.

ANY credible method of exposing the criminal acts would involve leaving the country and publicizing them in a responsible manner. (As opposed to WikiLeaks "publish everything" style.)

[neoplacebo]

Do you agree with the writer that Snowden is loyal to American values?

.

No, but I left the entire paragraph intact so as not to be rightfully charged with creative editing. Certainly he was loyal to some values of some Americans. Not this American. Of course, anything can be watered down to fit something high-minded and worthy. If I wanted to do that, I'd start (abbreviated version) with something like, "would you agree that dishonest government officials who refuse to follow court decisions and Congressional directives should be removed from office"? Yes! "And if those officials violated the law, would you agree they should be prosecuted?" Hell, yes! And if an employee discovered criminal acts, would you agree s/he should report it?" Sure! "And if it was the employee's bosses who were the suspected criminals, would you agree the employee should report the criminal acts somewhere else?" Oh yes! etc....
But when real details are put in place of platitudes, one often finds the devil hiding.

Yes, the devil. Very much so. My prediction is that NSA surveillance will increase because of all of this. How could it not? I mean, they (the NSA) must be suffering some form of acute pseudo paranoia by now. Probably working overtime.

[O Really]

If I wanted to do that, I'd start (abbreviated version) with something like, "would you agree that dishonest government officials who refuse to follow court decisions and Congressional directives should be removed from office"? Yes! "And if those officials violated the law, would you agree they should be prosecuted?" Hell, yes! And if an employee discovered criminal acts, would you agree s/he should report it?"

Meanwhile back in reality, every point you make above has been shown to be utterly inapplicable in Snowden's case.

)

Correct. My point exactly. But that's the way to build support and sympathy for a lying, thieving, betrayer.