World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

[goDel]

Ah... Eugene is only taking the lawyerly position of innocent until proven guilty ( beyond reasonable doubt). Which is fine of itself and actually forces me to stay out of the hypomania mode which is so easy to fall into.

 

So,if I jump into the lawyerly mode of the defense of Snowden: If he does happen to come in front of a us court, what would the case look like? Lets say the defense has to prove Snowden's actions fall inside that clear/ broad definition you ( @eugene) posted earlier.

 

Odds are, the defense cannot prove the nsa does things against the law. Notice how prosecution could use the loopholes mentioned in that Guardian piece I posted earlier. The irony... You can see the defense already failing because of the laws being...ehm... They have loopholes. So even if the laws are changed at this point in time, such that all loopholes are being fixed, Snowdens case is nowhere because at the time he "blowed his whistle", everything was perfectly "legal". That's lawyerly logic, right?.

 

An abuse of authority? Well, seeing the rest of the options, Snowden's hope of falling under the whistleblowers protection is basically here at this point. So, how could the defense prove such a thing in this case? Could the defense prove, in a lawyerly fashion, that the fully informed abused their authority to legalise things which shouldn't have been made legal? Or prove that the nsa abused their authority? That's either proving in front of a court that the entire us government system abuses its authority, or proving the nsa did things against the law(back at first point).

 

I'm sure a lawyerly proof of the us government basically not being democratic would be the wet dream of all political activists on this planet, but I hope it's clear that it's virtually impossible. The defense could try proving the "who should be fully informed" weren't fully informed after all. But what kind of case could there be in a context of the governmental decision process leading up to the legislation of all kinds of stuff?

 

This whistleblower document isn't suited for a case like this. It is suited for cases where there is fraud which can be proven in front of a court. In this instance it's about an employee of a secret service disagreeing with the moral and democratic aspects of his work. He's basically whistleblowing about how the entire process does not work properly. That doesn't mean fraud or any illegal activity. That means immoral and undemocratic. How could a person who works for a secret service leak through "the proper channel" under these circumstances? Please tell me, because I can't see it. If you want to be lawyerly, you might want to try working on the defense side for a second ( before turning back to the prosecution side).

[goDel]

Interesting interview, btw. Thanks for posting, ios!

[hello spiral]

 

Lots of banned profiles in this thread. Conspiracy? I guess we will never know how sup's essay turned out. Maybe he crashed his car into a tree at 200mph on his way to hand it in.

 

if you must know, he crashed his car into a tree at 200mph while handing out

 

 

Not a very secrete way of doing it imo.

[awepittance]

If i can understand maybe in a backwards way what Eugene meant to say a few posts ago, the Patriot Act is such a drastic shift away from the normal legal standard of probable cause that it essentially became open season on privacy civil liberties for everyone because everyone is technically '3 hops away' from a terrorist, so at some point one of us has associated with someone who associated with someone who associated with a terrorist overseas (supposedly). I don't remember where I saw it but that dragnet includes 2/3rds the population of the united states

lets not forget that the conversation and debate we're having right now and have been having for the past few months on this forum is exactly what Edward Snowden wanted to achieve. This is how actual action is made that results in tangible change. Props again to Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian and Snowden for creating the environment for the dialog.

[goDel]

 

"While the FAA 702 minimization procedures approved on 3 October 2011 now allow for use of certain United States person names and identifiers as query terms when reviewing collected FAA 702 data," the glossary states, "analysts may NOT/NOT [not repeat not] implement any USP [uS persons] queries until an effective oversight process has been developed by NSA and agreed to by DOJ/ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]."

The term "identifiers" is NSA jargon for information relating to an individual, such as telephone number, email address, IP address and username as well as their name.

 

The document – which is undated, though metadata suggests this version was last updated in June 2012 – does not say whether the oversight process it mentions has been established or whether any searches against US person names have taken place.

so they don't know the result of the process but claim that nsa loophole allows (in the present tense) "warantless search for americans' names" in the article title, is this some shitty sensationalist journalism or am i missing something ?

 

 

This is about a government telling us to keep on sleeping as we're being kept safe by programs which are being monitored to respect our privacy. While at the same time, when journalists delve deeper into this juristic mess (excuse my framing), there's all kinds of aspects which question whether we indeed should remain sleeping.

 

Was the government transparent about these issues? No! They even flatly denied there being any. Did they warn us? Not at all! Everything was fine.

 

Perhaps the point is that people shouldn't trust a government which doesn't trust the population enough to tell them the truth? Shitty journalism? This? How so? That quote was part of the piece, right? So you could have read for yourself that it's not clear to what extent those issues still exist.

 

The shitty part, is the part you read into it, imo. Namely some accusations I'm assuming? I don't know. The quote was pretty factual, I believe.

 

Also, the official NSA white paper is pretty interesting:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/2013_08_09_the_nsa_story.pdf

 

Ever been "touched" by the NSA?

[eugene]

If i can understand maybe in a backwards way what Eugene meant to say a few posts ago, the Patriot Act is such a drastic shift away from the normal legal standard of probable cause that it essentially became open season on privacy civil liberties for everyone because everyone is technically '3 hops away' from a terrorist, so at some point one of us has associated with someone who associated with someone who associated with a terrorist overseas (supposedly). I don't remember where I saw it but that dragnet includes 2/3rds the population of the united states

 

lets not forget that the conversation and debate we're having right now and have been having for the past few months on this forum is exactly what Edward Snowden wanted to achieve. This is how actual action is made that results in tangible change. Props again to Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian and Snowden for creating the environment for the dialog.

9/11 was an extraordinary event that prompted extraordinary legislation, it was understandable how it got passed and it's understandable why it may be retracted/adjusted some day.

 

well i agree with the second paragraph, he sort of showed that things that were expected to happen actually happened.

[eugene]

 

 

"While the FAA 702 minimization procedures approved on 3 October 2011 now allow for use of certain United States person names and identifiers as query terms when reviewing collected FAA 702 data," the glossary states, "analysts may NOT/NOT [not repeat not] implement any USP [uS persons] queries until an effective oversight process has been developed by NSA and agreed to by DOJ/ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]."

The term "identifiers" is NSA jargon for information relating to an individual, such as telephone number, email address, IP address and username as well as their name.

 

The document – which is undated, though metadata suggests this version was last updated in June 2012 – does not say whether the oversight process it mentions has been established or whether any searches against US person names have taken place.

so they don't know the result of the process but claim that nsa loophole allows (in the present tense) "warantless search for americans' names" in the article title, is this some shitty sensationalist journalism or am i missing something ?

 

 

This is about a government telling us to keep on sleeping as we're being kept safe by programs which are being monitored to respect our privacy. While at the same time, when journalists delve deeper into this juristic mess (excuse my framing), there's all kinds of aspects which question whether we indeed should remain sleeping.

 

Was the government transparent about these issues? No! They even flatly denied there being any. Did they warn us? Not at all! Everything was fine.

 

Perhaps the point is that people shouldn't trust a government which doesn't trust the population enough to tell them the truth? Shitty journalism? This? How so? That quote was part of the piece, right? So you could have read for yourself that it's not clear to what extent those issues still exist.

 

The shitty part, is the part you read into it, imo. Namely some accusations I'm assuming? I don't know. The quote was pretty factual, I believe.

 

Also, the official NSA white paper is pretty interesting:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/2013_08_09_the_nsa_story.pdf

 

Ever been "touched" by the NSA?

 

i'm talking about this thing specifically:

the whole internet is now reposting this article from guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls#_) that says that there's a loophole that allows warrantless search for u.s names in nsa databases. i really don't see how this snippet and some senator's interpretation of this snippet show that there's such loophole, it actually looks like there are clear restrictions on such queries. so it's either me going insane or the whole internet because i really don't see how you can get away with the title "NSA loophole allows warrantless search for US citizens' emails and phone calls" given this information and evidence. the only people who seem to fight this tsunami of bad journalism and general hyperbole are david simon and some blogger named bob cesca (http://thedailybanter.com/author/bob-cesca/)

[goDel]

What that piece shows, is that there is a database which contains this kind of information (of US and non-US citizens) which can be queried, technically speaking. Perhaps my memory is rusty, but wasn't the old story the US wasn't even allowed to just collect data from us citizens unless it had a certain ground to do so?

 

Reading this piece, you could well interpret it as the US having "all" the data in their database, but not allowing the analysts to query for US-citizens. On paper. I can assure you one thing though: this database will have no indicator of which data belongs to us-citizens and which data doesn't. It's, in all likelyhood, one giant ball of data. And it's up to the analyst to decide whether or not he/she investigates a certain trail. In practice, the legal aspect behind their work will only count in court at the end of an investigation. But right up onto that point, it's the analyst making personal decisions on whether or not he should be looking into information.

 

edit: in other words - as far as i'm concerned, the most likely reality is the one where both Snowden and the government tell the "truth". While Snowden is talking from a practical point of view (what such analysts actually are doing), the government is talking about whether or not this program is legal and what not. Both can be right at the same time.

[eugene]

well the point of computerized databases is that's they're very organized (by particular parameters) by definition, and besides i don't think we know enough about such databases (type of content, scope..) to make such speculations.

[goDel]

well the point of computerized databases is that's they're very organized (by particular parameters) by definition, and besides i don't think we know enough about such databases (type of content, scope..) to make such speculations.

well as an analyst at a health-insurance agency covering a large part of the country i live in, i think i can make some kind of educated speculations.

 

But you're right though: it all depends on the data and how it's organized. And especially the datasource. Is all the data clustered beforehand (as if it comes straight out of the google database)? Or is its source just a huge stream of data, unspecified, as if it's a copy of the data traffic of what is running through those atlantic cables? Either those companies like google are lying and they do allow the government access to those "very organised" databases, or the US is tapping into other less organized sources.

 

Still though, the NSA database might indeed be heavily organized, but if that's the case and they're not using data from google and the likes, that means that they've been working pretty hard to organize it themselves. And in order to be able to do that, they have to analyse all the data. Even that of US citizens.

[goDel]

The essential point here is, of course, that we don't know what the exact datasources are. The government itself talks about huge fishingnets. Perhaps that's a clue? They're fishing for leaking data in the Atlantic?

 

I can only speculate. What I do know however, is that government wont tell and that we have to trust them on their pale blue eyes.

[Jody Dark]

i feel like im jumping off cliffs while chewing cyanide and smashing hammers into my head

 

thats how much this conversation makes sense

[eugene]

i feel like im jumping off cliffs while chewing cyanide and smashing hammers into my head

 

thats how much this conversation makes sense

try talking it through, maybe i can help..

[IOS]

I can only speculate here.

 

I wouldn't think the NSA are organising the data as much. That's the whole point of F*cebook in the first place - to make the people do the hard work, voluntarily, whilst having carefree fun.

 

The process is similar to, say, Discogs.org, where users upload information voluntarily on music records, they categorise it and tag it based on some criteria etc.

 

The idea is to collect massive amounts of data and train computer systems so that they become more efficient in classifying and distinguishing x from y. The next stage would be to run queries on the database and see who poses a threat based on the things they talk about; or perform pattern matching algorithms between the lifestyle of a known criminal and a bunch of innocent people; or study 'degrees of separation' between one person and a threatening individual; etc.

 

"The more contact I have with humen, the more I learn."

The Terminator

[eugene]

The essential point here is, of course, that we don't know what the exact datasources are. The government itself talks about huge fishingnets. Perhaps that's a clue? They're fishing for leaking data in the Atlantic?

 

I can only speculate. What I do know however, is that government wont tell and that we have to trust them on their pale blue eyes.

yeah, that what bothers people i guess. but without this secrecy it would probably be much less potent. when potential adversary knows what data is being collected and how it is being collected it makes that whole intelligence apparatus pointless. so yeah, it's not unreasonable to ask the public to trust its representatives in such scenarios, especially when there are no known cases of abuse.

[cruising for burgers]

Is your essay in written in english? If yes, I would feel concerned about your grades.

lol

[goDel]

 

The essential point here is, of course, that we don't know what the exact datasources are. The government itself talks about huge fishingnets. Perhaps that's a clue? They're fishing for leaking data in the Atlantic?

 

I can only speculate. What I do know however, is that government wont tell and that we have to trust them on their pale blue eyes.

yeah, that what bothers people i guess. but without this secrecy it would probably be much less potent. when potential adversary knows what data is being collected and how it is being collected it makes that whole intelligence apparatus pointless. so yeah, it's not unreasonable to ask the public to trust its representatives in such scenarios, especially when there are no known cases of abuse.

 

 

I find that hard to swallow. Do you really think 'terrorists' are using facebook because they believe it's safe to do so?

 

The question might be what they are trying to find. People in the US with connections outside the us who might be radicalising and pose a threat within us borders? What about people who are radicalising without any connections outside the US? Is the entire program built on the assumption that people who are radicalising start having contact with people outside US borders? Really? Or is it also about finding radicalising factors outside US borders without any real danger to the people within US borders? I don't think those folks would have contact with people within US borders, btw. And how could the current program find people who are radicalising within US borders, but without contacts across US borders?

 

If they can't (because of legal issues) I find it hard to swallow that the US actually invests all this money into some program for so little. It's more likely that they can however, but you might wonder how those analysts, who are not entitled to look for US citizens without a clear sign that they are radicalising. And that sign is presumably coming from outside the program. From inside would be illegal, right? So why on earth invest that money in such a program? If there's a reason to screen someone, the NSA can knock on the doors of the silicon valley companies, right? There's not really a need for such an expensive program in such cases, I'd think.

 

Look, I know I'm asking naive questions here, but the point is that the logic provided by the government doesn't seem to add up. Not only is this secrecy hardly relevant at this point. Everyone is already assuming the US has access to peoples online lives. Wether it's your facebook or your phone records. So perhaps we're not allowed to know what they don't have access to? Is that it? If that's the case, it wouldn't really matter if they give a couple of obvious sources, right? They only need to say there are a couple of other sources and people will still assume the NSA has access to everything already. (let's call it the "wow"-factor)

 

The potency in methods like these may not be in the secrecy at all, btw. If you want to keep people in check, it's even better to let them know they are being watched. If safety is that important, the US only needs some propaganda marketing budget to keep people believing they are being watched.

 

The "intelligence needs secrecy" argument is highly overrated, imo. Sure, it's better to keep things like stuxnet secret, but that's a completely different program than collecting data. Stuxnet is like a secret weapon which can give an edge if it's secret. Collecting data is not really a secret weapon? It's more like arguing that the state needs to be able to be a secret big brother in order for it to be a potent big brother. But only to the people outside the US who just happen to have contacts with people inside the US. Sure....

 

This story just doesn't add up. The obvious story would be that they are looking for radicalising individuals within US borders. People who sometimes have connections with people outside the us, and sometimes (more often, I'm assuming) without connections outside the US. And the other obvious story would be that the NSA is able to trace anyones entire online history whenever there's a signal coming from outside the program. Whatever the case, it's still mostly about finding US citizens.

 

Finding terrorists in the middle east doesn't require access to google and/or facebook. Afghanistan? Somalia? Iran? Jemen? Pakistan? How much are those "silicon valley" services being used over there? They might use cellphones, but the NSA wouldn't need deals with companies within US borders about storing their data (or something similar). The NSA only needs to tap into those foreign companies. And because that's outside the US border and there aren't any US citizens involved, the legal side of it is pretty simple. They could do whatever they want and keep it under cover, as long as no us citizen is involved. Right? Or am I missing something?

[Alcofribas]

i found this quite good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

 

eugene, you should really read this one.

[awepittance]

abby called it a couple of years ago, but they're going to seamlessly replace the war on terrorism, with the war on cyber terrorism effectively criminalizing behavior that merely makes your internet use anonymous. Basically smart tech savvy people who try to stay off this NSA grid will become automatically targets themselves.

[eugene]

i found this quite good: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

 

eugene, you should really read this one.

i did but i couldn't find anything new or really interesting, what specifically did you want me to see ?

i mean given her position i expected something more revelatory but she just repeats the narrative that greenwald and co have constructed (which has shoddy basis so say the least, like the nsa loophole which is not a loophole as i showed, or warrantless surveillance that isn't warrantless at all, see bob cesca blog regarding the last) with the addition of her and her senator's gripes about secrecy and the lack of open debate. there's no open debate now either, i mean some bombastic and mostly unsupported claims by greenwald and guardian certainly made some waves but is anyone actually planning to reveal all those secrets for public review ? doubtful. nothing prevented public debate about the secrecy of this whole ordeal earlier, the public probably wasn't too interested so it didn't get much traction, but when snowden and greenwald go and say that everything you do on the internet is being spied on without anything to back this claim up suddenly everyone goes mental. it's an interesting phenomena on its own though.

[eugene]

@godel, i really can't answer most of your points without going into speculations.

i mean, do terrorists use facebook ? most serious ones prbably not, but it's not hard to imagine that someone like tsarnaev brothers would use it. everyone already assumes that internet is being screened? well perhaps, but some less directly connected people of the terrorist networks might still give up some snippets information. it's hard to answer to all this without knowing the scope, the capability, price and the legal basis of the nsa program(s)

[goDel]

Eugene, aren't you reversing the burden of proof here? Isn't it the NSA which should be proving they're doing everything by the book, instead of the other way around?

 

The NSA is basically working in complete secrecy, so how can the outside world prove that the NSA is not following the letter of the law? The only "proof" is some FISA court which should be the most important check/balance. And that court is shrouded in secrecy as well. The most important thing we know, is that it pretty much allowed any attempt of the NSA to go after US citizens.

 

Imo, it's still not clear what they want to achieve with this program. If it's indeed finding radicalising individuals, than they could have tried creating some mental health program actually helping people at the roots of the problem. Sounds a bit more constructive and way less intrusive, don't you think?

[eugene]

im not sure if they have to prove anything, have there been serious indicators that they are abusing their powers/authority/laws ?

why the expectations of them are different as opposed to the authorities that are responsible for building regulations for example? those are even more important as they are supposed to guarantee that the bridge you drive on or a house you live in wont collapse, as opposed to violation of privacy.

i guess the paranoia in regards to nsa's secrecy overshadows the usual , very well warranted (and mostly internalized) trust in countless institutions that guarantee that things are operating according to laws and expectations.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

Imo, it's still not clear what they want to achieve with this program. If it's indeed finding radicalising individuals, than they could have tried creating some mental health program actually helping people at the roots of the problem. Sounds a bit more constructive and way less intrusive, don't you think?

 

Exactly

[eugene]

i forgot to reply to that bit. no it actually seems to me like treating radicals is way more intrusive than screening them/determining whether they pose any danger at all.