I'm glad someone posted this. My immediate thought after reading the breaking news about the massive phone surveillance was, "wait, did people not think this was happening?" I'm really not a conspiracy nut, but that Wired article and the NYTimes reporting made it pretty clear that the Gov't is pretty much collecting everything they can get their hands on.
Glad to finally see some outrage though.
Legitimate question: what's new about what is breaking in the news right now? Merely confirmation that the NSA is conducting indiscriminate phone-taps?
Journalist Glenn Greenwald obtained documents from a leak that confirm the NSA has secretly been requiring Verizon (and presumably the same for other networks) to provide the complete information (location, duration, id) of every single call, national or international, on an ongoing daily basis.
There is no discrimination - this is everybody, all the time.
That's kind of a big deal.
It's also pretty damn brave of whoever leaked the document.
Yes. Under Obama, the Justice Department has prosecuted more leakers of confidential information than prior administrations. However, the number is 6, so whether this is due to a difference in policy or random occurrences is not clear to me.
> whether this is due to a difference in policy or random occurrences is not clear to me
Also, 6 is a numerator. The denominator is unknown. Are there more leaks under the Obama administration, period? Are people more willing to leak? I don't feel like there's enough information available to make a judgement call.
The Obama administration has been much more forward and harsh against leaks that past administrations. At least, it appears that way to people looking in from the outside.
There is a very interesting book called The Puzzle Palace, about the early history of the NSA and its forerunners. The telegraph system had ATT cooperating with the government to let them have a copy of everything. This is before telephones. I always assumed this never stopped.
Project SHAMROCK. It ended in 1975 due to the scandals that came to light during Church committee hearings (and Watergate), hearings that resulted in things like FISA and the Congressional select committees on intelligence oversight.
I'm relying on my memory of the book from many years ago, and I don't have a copy any longer, but I think I recall that the telegraph eavesdropping began way before SHAMROCK, in the early days of the telegraph. In other words, as long as we have had electrical communications, our government has been listening in. Before that, of course, there was the post office....
This has been around for much longer than people realize. What does everyone think this is used for these days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON All those intercept points didn't just go away.
Wasn't there a legal requirement that ISPs install some sort of box for law enforcement usage back in the early 2000s?
Also, I recall reading article from around the same time where a network operator noticed mysterious taps that appeared in his fiber rack over night. These were at a major peering point(lvl3 or att?). The taps went into the ceiling and over a wall. When he questioned their existence, he wasn't allowed to remove them or investigate further.
This has been going on ever since the internet and cell phones became popular. The difference now is that they are less secretive about it. See before, you had to have your ally(the UK, AUS, etc...) log communications for you and you'd log communications for them. Then there's no risk of federal or local laws getting in the way. It looks like just good old fashioned espionage. I guess after 9/11, the powers that be felt that wasn't good enough.
> what's new about what is breaking in the news right now?
That they no longer operate on a cloak-and-dagger basis, and that all three branches (judicial, executive, legislative) are demonstrating an unprecedented level of cooperation -- the "checks and balances" we so hold dear in democracy are now null and void.
Previously, plausible deniability and "neither confirm nor deny" public relations policies dominated the privacy debate arena, however now we can move forward beyond that and we can have a frank and honest discussion about it all.
The window of opportunity to debate these broad-sweeping and baseless violations of privacy is distinctly ajar, however it is closing quickly.
The various levels of government will soon rely quite heavily on this domestic surveillance network and implementing restrictions after the fact is almost always impossible.
2nd Amendment is probably the check and balance with the least potential efficacy these days -- pro-gun supporters who tout right to bear arms to protect against government tyranny are living a fantasy. Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
I think that is true only if you make certain assumptions - assumptions which I consider unfounded.
For example, if an armed revolution broke out, are we assuming that no military units would defect and join the rebellion? If so, I'd consider that questionable.
Also, are we assuming that the rebels are armed only with pistols, shotguns and semiautomatic rifles? No way... first, factor in IEDs and homemade weapons, and then factor in the likely capture of at least some military grade weaponry, and/or ilicit supply of those weapons to the rebels.
Nukes aren't even part of this equation, so no point bringing that up at all.
The thing I'd worry most about in a rebellion scenario, is the air superiority of the standing military. But if we're talking guerrilla warfare... well, it's hard to bomb an enemy when you don't know where they are.
Finally, consider sheer numbers: I forget the numbers now from last time I looked this up, but the number of members of the standing US military is fairly small relative to the population of the US. And there are a LOT of guns out there. And as somebody (possibly Stalin) once said "quantity has a quality all it's own". Get enough Americans to participate, and you'd have a chance.
Anyway... not to suggest that it's a given, nor do I hope this scenario ever unfolds. Just food for thought.
Glad to finally see some outrage though.
Legitimate question: what's new about what is breaking in the news right now? Merely confirmation that the NSA is conducting indiscriminate phone-taps?