Here’s the Guardian’s interactive feature which intersperses interviews with Ron Wyden, Zoe Lofgren, Jeremy Scahill and Voldemort. It does explain the relevance of the NSA leaks pretty well if you’ve been looking for an explanation.
Talking Heads
by @heymistermix.com| 36 Comments
This post is in: Security Theatre
Comrade Scrutinizer
But Snowden is a poopyhead and Google.
Steeplejack
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
One and done.
ruemara
It’s really a well done interactive piece. I still don’t have a problem with the metadata collection. Funny how you can hear the argument and still not agree with it. I wish they had covered the FISA issue more thoroughly. I’m just not concerned with this beyond the issue of watering down encryption for the NSA’s benefit. That should be fixed and I lean towards the Wyden/Udall bill. We’ll see if it gets to the floor.
jamick6000
off topic, but thought this was an article people would be interested in
Ash Can
Is the Guardian being paid in rubles, yuan, or both?
Seriously, way too many people have been totally buffaloed by the huge shiny object of what US intelligence gathering is able to do, and have completely lost sight of the fact that Edward Snowden took a job with Booz Allen for the expressed purpose of stealing classified information, and once he had stolen that information went straight to the Chinese and the Russians with it. This should be so fucking obvious — and the realities of international espionage so fucking obvious — that I can’t believe this Guardian puffery is even being greeted seriously here.
What’s next, links to Breitbart on the ACA? They have big splashy spreads too, you know.
Barry
Each and ever page on this blog is taking well over a minute to load. Is it my crappy internet connection, or is something wrong?
Corner Stone
Great work by The Guardian. Thanks, mistermix for FP.ng it.
Botsplainer
@Ash Can:
B-b-b-but Zoe Lofgren! Least effective pure progressive in Congress since Dennis Kucinich was last in that august body, she is a true dudebro stalwart.
And Scahill is a fucking nut most of the time.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Barry:
They are prolly doing weekend maintenance on the NSA servers.
Culture of Truth
Guardian Explains Importance of Guardian Story
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@ruemara: It isn’t about you having a problem with it or not. I personally don’t give a shit if people wear seatbelts or rob banks named Wells Fargo.
It’s about whether or not the law is being broken and it clearly is.
handsmile
Now available at the New York Review of Books website (the lead story in its next print issue), a wide-ranging essay by Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, “The Snowden Leaks and the Public.”
Among the issues it addresses: how the Guardian first came to publish the Snowden material; subsequent discussions with British government security officials; how and whether elected officials can develop and maintain oversight capabilities involving complex technologies they may poorly understand; how laws pertaining to the publication of state security matters differ between Britain and the US.
While it’s what is often termed a “long read” here, as Rusbridger has played a central role in the ongoing exposure of NSA/GCHQ surveillance, his essay is well worth one’s time.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/21/snowden-leaks-and-public/
It should be noted as well that the Guardian has begun to come under attack by both British media competitors and, more importantly, British politicians for damaging national security, A parliamentary Select Committee has been convened to examine this charge and earlier this week David Cameron declared that it may become necessary to invoke legal measures to constrain further publication of Snowden materials.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/david-cameron-nsa-threat-newspapers-guardian-snowden
Finally, dpm, you must be a glutton for virtual punishment, but thanks for these posts.
mai naem
I know I am supposed to give a crap about the NSA story but I just don’t. I am not even sure I would give a crap if it was Bush doing it. I am concerned about the waste of resources. I am concerned about the NSA getting too much information but only because I feel it makes it harder to find the needle in the haystack, not so much what information they are collecting.
Corner Stone
I’m glad they included some opinions by Stewart Baker, former NSA general counsel. I especially enjoyed his attempt to make the argument that the big rock they have in their yard is protecting them from dragons showing up.
Omnes Omnibus
I found the autoplay feature really annoying until I found the button that turned it off. Nice summation of the Guardian’s reporting. I think the Wyden-Udall bill is a good framework for reforms and ratcheting back domestic surveillance. I also think that metadata is different than phone records, but I don’t think either should be scooped up without probable cause.
Bill E Pilgrim
@mai naem:
“Not even sure”? But you think you might actually care about the abuses, if Obama weren’t President?
Well I’m impressed by your honesty. Most other apologists here stoutly protest any suggestion that team loyalty is driving their views.
I like this entry in the interactive piece: “Until recently Feinstein was a staunch defender of the NSA.. .she reversed course when the news broke about spying on friendly governments…”
So your average BJ commenter is now more trusting and less skeptical of authority than Dianne Feinstein. I’d say positioned at about the same place as David Cameron.
If that doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you’ve gone off the deep end, I can’t imagine anything will.
Corner Stone
@Bill E Pilgrim: Well, The Guardian is being accused of nefarious activities against the US by a poster upthread, so by comparison, mai naem’s comment was pretty refreshing.
edited a little
Cassidy
@Bill E Pilgrim: You’re being disingenuous. You and the other chicken littles on here seem to think that those defending the practice are only defending it because it’s a D in office. Really, we’re just surprised at your naivete that this is news to you. Our security and intelligence apparatus has been spying on whomever they damn well please since long before I was born, but, somehow, it’s only a problem now that Obama’s in office. Honestly, if you only took notice after Saint Greenwald and Prince Snowden decided it was an issue maybe you should reevaluate how far off the deep end you have gone.
geg6
@ruemara:
This, pretty much.
ruemara
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Actually, it is not clear that the law is being broken. That is the problem, they can’t point to clear laws being broken due to the nebulous nature of NatSec law. I’d also like to point out that you take issue more with the fact that I’m ok with the (currently legaly) metadata collection which you disagree with, rather than the actual meat to the supposed debate Snowden’s leaks are supposedly making us have-what sort of oversight legislation are we going to take. I know you’re a fuckhead, but at least focus on what the issue is.
Corner Stone
One is a savvy pragmatist if they trust President Obama or his team to do the right thing on this issue, or more accurately just don’t give a shit whether they do or not, but one is a hair on fire alarmist if you feel this doesn’t look kosher and desire some accountability at the end of the day.
“No, no!” the savvy pragmatist will say. “Clearly, I also want appropriate reforms and to have recognized accountability on this matter! I just don’t give a shit about it.”
White Trash Liberal
@Corner Stone:
You are a fucktard.
That is a bullshit characterization which reflects only a few commenters here and in general.
It has never been about trusting Obama. It has been about:
1. The accuracy and scope of what has been revealed.
2. The correct approach to take.
It’s the savvy brogressives who clutch their dog-eared Year 500 by Chomsky and accuse those of us not setting our hair on fire of being authoritarians.
The whole D or R argument is a canard. Because shit like this was going on during the Bush administration. You know who vouched for FISA as an august body and declared that the US should be spying on terrorists?
I’ll give you three guesses.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@ruemara: Yes, it is against the law regardless of how brutally Congress has fucked this chicken. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Fourth Amendment is pretty fucking clear on this matter. No one has amended the Fourth Amendment to my knowledge.
ETA: And I guess the Director of the NSA lied to Congress about it because it’s totally legit.
carbon dated
Hey it’s Chomsky’s “Year 501” !
Corner Stone
@White Trash Liberal:
I’m sorry, but this is just factually incorrect. The issue of “trust” or “I trust Obama more than” has been repeatedly used in argumentation for policies such as the NSA. That’s just a fact.
And the same people who use the trust determinant are in the same category as those casually saying they don’t give a shit about this issue now.
As for how long it’s been going on, and the fact that it was going on during the GWB admin as well, here’s your clue cookie, asshole.
carbon dated
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: “the Fourth Amendment is pretty fucking clear on this matter”
Reasonable people can disagree on this point. Of course, you’d have to define “unreasonable” ….
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: I don’t trust the current Court to get this one right.
Ripley
Stop Boring Us.
Three-nineteen
@carbon dated: I find it unreasonable for the US government to collect information on where I am, who I’m talking to and for how long when I am an American citizen and am not even suspected of doing anything wrong. I also don’t like them storing it forever “just in case”.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@mai naem:
He was, and I sure didn’t. Nobody should have an expectation of privacy in electronic communications.
Omnes Omnibus
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): Why not? Do you include content of phone calls? Those are transmitted electronically. What is it about electronic communications that sets it apart in your mind?
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Because they are so damned easy to intercept. Yes, I include the content of phone calls. I wouldn’t include potentially self-incriminating information in a phone call, land or cell.
Omnes Omnibus
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): Just because something can be intercepted doesn’t mean that is should be. It requires a warrant to wiretap a phone. Why shouldn’t it require a warrant to read an email?
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m not advocating “should be” but rather recognizing that in our current state…to some extent a security state…some personal liberty tends to be abrogated.
Again, not advocating the legality of wiretapping of content, I’m just saying that I PERSONALLY don’t expect that electronic communications are safe from prying eyes.
I haven’t seen any evidence of warrantless reading of emails. Did I miss something?
Omnes Omnibus
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo):
No. I don’t think so. You are arguing that you just don’t trust that someone isn’t listening or looking. I saw the term “expectation of privacy” and interpreted it as the legal term of art. Basically, if you have no expectation of privacy in something in a legal sense, then listening in is fine. I read what you wrote as advocating that stance.
dopey-o
That is why I don’t want Obama or Bush rifling thru my calls, emails, texts, tweets or underwear drawer.