Live Q and a with Snowden on the Guardian

[Yanks_Todd]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...-whistleblower

[DWB]

Whoa....

If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by DWB

Whoa....

FAA 702 "permits the Attorney General and the DNI jointly to authorize targeted collection of foreign intelligence from non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Section 702 allows such collection even if a U.S. person inside the United States is a party to the communication, subject to minimization procedures and other safeguards.

Did they target a US Citizen and read his email without a warrant? No. They targeted a non US citizen outside of the US, and in the process came across information about a US Citizen. It's no different than tapping a phone line - "they" can get a warrant to tap "Bob's phone line" but if I call that phone line they still get to listen in - even though they don't have a warrant to tap my phone line.

When they start targeting US citizens without a warrant and reading all of their email, then we have a problem. Then we have a huge problem.

BTW, did anyone read the comment FB made about this? They said they've received ten thousand requests to release information. Most of it was local police departments with local crimes, not the Federal Government.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Rochard

When they start targeting US citizens without a warrant and reading all of their email, then we have a problem. Then we have a huge problem.

dude i am outside the US

lots are. they have legal justification to 'keep an eye on you', and it be exactly what they're meant to do, paid to do, etc

you do business all day with people off shore

maybe a few got some ideas?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

dude i am outside the US

lots are. they have legal justification to 'keep an eye on you', and it be exactly what they're meant to do, paid to do, etc

you do business all day with people off shore

maybe a few got some ideas?

And?

I do business all day long with people in foreign countries. I am pretty confident none of them are suspected by the US Government as being terrorists. And if the NSA wants to monitor the conversions I have with a programmer in Israel about his dating site, well, honestly I'm okay with that.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

FAA 702 "permits the Attorney General and the DNI jointly to authorize targeted collection of foreign intelligence from non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Section 702 allows such collection even if a U.S. person inside the United States is a party to the communication, subject to minimization procedures and other safeguards.

Did they target a US Citizen and read his email without a warrant? No. They targeted a non US citizen outside of the US, and in the process came across information about a US Citizen. It's no different than tapping a phone line - "they" can get a warrant to tap "Bob's phone line" but if I call that phone line they still get to listen in - even though they don't have a warrant to tap my phone line.

When they start targeting US citizens without a warrant and reading all of their email, then we have a problem. Then we have a huge problem.

BTW, did anyone read the comment FB made about this? They said they've received ten thousand requests to release information. Most of it was local police departments with local crimes, not the Federal Government.

Did you read through his Q&A? This is what he said about that...

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

We have a problem.

About Facbook, Google, and so on...

Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.

They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by DWB

Did you read through his Q&A? This is what he said about that...



We have a problem.

About Facbook, Google, and so on...

He said...

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

No, I don't think he did.

Someone, somewhere, at the end of the day has to be able to do this. I think Snowden was that person. He had the ability, but not the authority. The authority had to come from a warrant. Without it, he was breaking the law.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

He said...

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

No, I don't think he did.

Someone, somewhere, at the end of the day has to be able to do this. I think Snowden was that person. He had the ability, but not the authority. The authority had to come from a warrant. Without it, he was breaking the law.

He said HE had the authority. Unless he is lying, that means he had the authority, not just the ability.

Of course the law is being broken, that is part of the point of all of this. Warrants are no longer needed. If this was all on the up and up, he wouldn't be a "whistle blower" as there would be nothing to blow his whistle about.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And?

I do business all day long with people in foreign countries. I am pretty confident none of them are suspected by the US Government as being terrorists. And if the NSA wants to monitor the conversions I have with a programmer in Israel about his dating site, well, honestly I'm okay with that.

im sorry to hear that

especially from someone who talks about being in the marines so much

i hope you didn't kill anyone 'protecting freedoms'.. cause that justification is a little moot now, eh?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DWB

He said HE had the authority. Unless he is lying, that means he had the authority, not just the ability.

Of course the law is being broken, that is part of the point of all of this. Warrants are no longer needed. If this was all on the up and up, he wouldn't be a "whistle blower" as there would be nothing to blow his whistle about.

it was also revealed to congress in secret session last week that the agent can and does get to authorize that shit without a warrant.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by DWB

He said HE had the authority. Unless he is lying, that means he had the authority, not just the ability.

Well, if it is on the Internet it has to be true. They could not put it there if it wasn't.

[dyna mo]

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...s-phone-calls/

[DWB]

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, if it is on the Internet it has to be true. They could not put it there if it wasn't.

It was a Q & A with the whistle blower himself. Those were his words.

However, I suppose the odds that he is lying are just as great as some of you being in denial. Flip a coin. I guess we will see how much he is telling the truth by how hard they go after him.

[dyna mo]

nadler's backtracking on what he heard in the closed door super secret hearing

A Capitol Hill lawmaker sparked a string of conflicting statements about the limits of U.S. surveillance after claiming during a hearing last week that he was told officials can listen to phone calls without a warrant.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler made the comments during a hearing Thursday, but has since appeared to walk them back as the intelligence community denied the claim.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2WW0q18MO

technical term is "walk them back."

[DWB]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...s-phone-calls/

Amazing.

I wonder if the qualifications to become an analyst are tougher than becoming a TSA agent?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DWB

Amazing.

I wonder if the qualifications to become an analyst are tougher than becoming a TSA agent?

i honestly don't know what to believe about it all anymore but i've read that hiring requirement have recently become more difficult than they were in the years immediately following 9/11 when they were really ramping up.

i had an article pulled up around here somewhere going over the intell community's hiring practices but crap, this is all coo coo stuff, i'll see if i can track it down.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by DWB

He said HE had the authority. Unless he is lying, that means he had the authority, not just the ability.

Of course the law is being broken, that is part of the point of all of this. Warrants are no longer needed. If this was all on the up and up, he wouldn't be a "whistle blower" as there would be nothing to blow his whistle about.

I don't think he did have the authority to do anything. I don't think he knows who had the authority. And that line gets blurred quickly.

Years ago I worked for the phone company, and was in charge of a 24 hour operator center. The building was also the switching hub. When the FBI came to put a tap on the line, they didn't come with a warrant - all of that was done way above me by attorneys. Instead, I was told by my bosses they were coming.

If every NSA sub contractor stopped and demanded to see a warrant every time nothing would get done. It's entirely possible Snowden had no idea when a warrant was issued or not.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Why would they need a warrant to tap a phone line that isn't in the United States?

Don't you people understand how this works? They don't need a warrant to kill someone outside of the country. Hell, the CIA at once point had bugged the Russian embassy in Berlin - just dug right up under it and tapped all of their lines. Did they need a warrant for that?

[dyna mo]

rochard, the word domestic is in my comment you quoted.

don't you understand the difference between foreign and domestic snooping?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DWB

Amazing.

I wonder if the qualifications to become an analyst are tougher than becoming a TSA agent?

snowden was with booz 3 months when he blew the whistle.

The unprecedented leak of top-secret documents by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden raises far-reaching questions about the government?s rush to outsource intelligence work to contractors since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Never before have so many U.S. intelligence workers been hired so quickly, or been given access to secret government information through networked computers. In recent years, about one in four intelligence workers has been a contractor, and 70 percent or more of the intelligence community?s secret budget has gone to private firms.


Who holds security clearances?
Top Secret America


Explore Top Secret America
The government has built a national security and intelligence system so big, so complex and so hard to manage, no one really knows if it's fulfilling its most important purpose: keeping its citizens safe.

Booz Allen Hamilton, which hired the 29-year-old Snowden three months ago to work at the NSA, has been a leader among more than 1,900 firms that have supplied tens of thousands of intelligence analysts in recent years, including technologists and field spies.

But in the rush to fill jobs, the government has relied on faulty procedures to vet intelligence workers, documents and interviews show. At the same time, intelligence agencies have not hired enough in-house government workers to manage and oversee the contractors, contracting specialists said.

On Monday, lawmakers said they will examine Snowden?s hiring and the growing use of private companies for intelligence work.

?We?ll be going over every inch of this,? said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who expects confidential briefings on the leak in the next few days. Public hearings are likely as well, he said.

Schiff said the committee long has worried about the cost of outsourcing but now will scrutinize the security risks more closely. ?Now I think we?ll be looking that through an entirely different lens,? he said.

Intelligence officials, government auditors and contracting specialists have warned for years that the vulnerability to spies and breaches was rising, along with contracting fraud and abuse.

?When you increase the volume of contractors exponentially but you don?t invest in the personnel necessary to manage and oversee that workforce, your exposure increases,? said Steven Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University. ?This is what happens when you have staggering numbers of people with access to this kind of information.?

The reliance on contractors reflects a major shift toward outsourcing over the past 15 years, in part because of cutbacks in the government agencies and commitment to smaller government by the George W. Bush administration.

Most of the work went to the largest contractors, including Booz Allen Hamilton, which had $5.8 billion in revenue last year. Almost all of Booz Allen?s work was for the government, and nearly a quarter of that was for intelligence agencies.

In the first few years after 2001, when the competition for qualified job candidates was the fiercest, it was not unusual for companies to give signing bonuses of $30,000 or a new car for workers with top-secret security clearances.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...287_story.html

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't think he did have the authority to do anything. I don't think he knows who had the authority.

Read this again, this is what HE said:

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

That means he, while sitting at his desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone.

I don't know how much more cut and dry you need it to be. He said he had the authority to do it. Go read his Q&A.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

snowden was with booz 3 months when he blew the whistle.

The fact that someone only on the job for 3 months would have that kind of access and authority, is insane.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by DWB

The fact that someone only on the job for 3 months would have that kind of access and authority, is insane.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Rochard

FAA 702 "permits the Attorney General and the DNI jointly to authorize targeted collection of foreign intelligence from non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Section 702 allows such collection even if a U.S. person inside the United States is a party to the communication, subject to minimization procedures and other safeguards.

Did they target a US Citizen and read his email without a warrant? No. They targeted a non US citizen outside of the US, and in the process came across information about a US Citizen. It's no different than tapping a phone line - "they" can get a warrant to tap "Bob's phone line" but if I call that phone line they still get to listen in - even though they don't have a warrant to tap my phone line.

When they start targeting US citizens without a warrant and reading all of their email, then we have a problem. Then we have a huge problem.

BTW, did anyone read the comment FB made about this? They said they've received ten thousand requests to release information. Most of it was local police departments with local crimes, not the Federal Government.

Keep drinking the kool aid, Rochard. They did a good job indoctrinating you!

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, if it is on the Internet it has to be true. They could not put it there if it wasn't.

Do you share a straw with Rochard?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DWB

The fact that someone only on the job for 3 months would have that kind of access and authority, is insane.

isn't it? i'm pretty slack jawed over the whole thing as more is revealed.

i can't believe we have a congressman that flips flops so blatantly, walking out of a closed-door hearing stating categorically he heard testimony that no authorization is required, coming back and saying he didn't hear that.

wtf!! this is a member of the house judiciary committee.

fuck that shit man.

[dyna mo]

i mean that is the fucking fundamental point of all this and dude wasn't listening?


fucking right.

now the news cycle is flush with stories of all the threats averted that we were never told about as a result of the snooping.

jfc.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by DWB

Read this again, this is what HE said:



That means he, while sitting at his desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone.

I don't know how much more cut and dry you need it to be. He said he had the authority to do it. Go read his Q&A.

Originally Posted by DWB

The fact that someone only on the job for 3 months would have that kind of access and authority, is insane.

One might suggest the same about arbitrarily believing anything and everything the guy says as fact.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it was also revealed to congress in secret session last week that the agent can and does get to authorize that shit without a warrant.

I was shocked that the Congressman came out and said that. He pretty much confirmed everything. I would not be surprised if he finds himself involved in a "scandal" shortly. Payback is a bitch.

It is also quite disgusting that most members went home for a long weekend rather than sit and get answers to a lot of things that were not previously told to them. Just shows you how complicit Congress is in all of this.

Snowden addressed each criticism (which were not many to begin with) and I do not doubt his credibility, especially with the response he's been receiving from the government.

Not only that, he promises that there is more to come. Even with the slideshow outing PRISM, the journalists withheld something like 40 slides because they went too far and exposed too much. What they released was just a teaser to show it/he are legit.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by baddog

One might suggest the same about arbitrarily believing anything and everything the guy says as fact.

So we have Feinstein and Chambliss saying that the Verizon records leak was true.

We have corporations releasing vague statements with very similar language saying they didn't participate.

Most of the PRISM slides were not released as they were deemed too sensitive.

We have a Congressman saying that he was disgusted at what he learned during the secret briefing last week -- that his worst fears were pretty much confirmed.

At what point does Snowden become creditable?

[georgeyw]

I bet this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If **low level** staff have this kind of access, imagine what the tippy top of the heap can do.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by epitome

Snowden addressed each criticism (which were not many to begin with) and I do not doubt his credibility, especially with the response he's been receiving from the government.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And?

I do business all day long with people in foreign countries. I am pretty confident none of them are suspected by the US Government as being terrorists. And if the NSA wants to monitor the conversions I have with a programmer in Israel about his dating site, well, honestly I'm okay with that.

How do you know they aren't suspect? The whole thing is fucked and the keyword in your post above this was "warrant" when tapping phone calls.

Our govt as a whole needs a good bitch slap from the citizens of this country. Too bad it will never happen.

[epitome]

If all of this is true to the word, lets talk about auditing.

DoD has approximately one auditor per $2 billion spent in contracts. Oversight is lax at best, which is why there is so much waste.

The intelligence contractors have sucked the institutional memory out of NSA as private pays more.

They were so far behind on clearance investigations that they had to outsource the process.

How much oversight do you really think there is?

Even if they need a "warrant," how many people are responsible for the oversight?

Also, the few laws that people keep mentioning are the ambiguously worded public ones. Nobody is privy to the DOJ interpretations of such laws, nor are they privy to any of the rules set by the secret intelligence committees in Congress.

Much more is done behind closed doors than in public.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[marlboroack]

When they announce it imagine how many people are going to blow their brains out