Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[IWasBored]

Is that cat woman or bat(wo)man? It makes a difference in whether she is to be considered batshit or catshit crazy.

 

[mama cass]

sorry if this has already been discussed somewhere, but have any of you been reading reports of this Prism surveillance programme in the US??

Facebook and Google insist they did not know of Prism surveillance program | World news | guardian.co.uk

Facebook and Google insist they did not know of Prism surveillance program
Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg sharply deny knowledge of Prism until Thursday even as Obama confirms program's existence

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 June 2013 00.14 BST

Mark Zuckerberg called the press reports about the existence of Prism 'outrageous'. Photograph: Robert Galbraith/Reuters

America's tech giants continued to deny any knowledge of a giant government surveillance programme called Prism, even as president Barack Obama confirmed the scheme's existence Friday.

With their credibility about privacy issues in sharp focus, all the technology companies said to be involved in the program issued remarkably similar statements.

All said they did not allow the government "direct access" to their systems, all said they had never heard of the Prism program, and all called for greater transparency.

In a blogpost titled 'What the…?' Google co-founder Larry Page and chief legal officer David Drummond said the "level of secrecy" around US surveillance procedures was undermining "freedoms we all cherish."

"First, we have not joined any program that would give the US government – or any other government – direct access to our servers. Indeed, the US government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called Prism until yesterday," they wrote.

"Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don't follow the correct process."

The Google executives said they were also "very surprised" to learn of the government order made to obtain data from Verizon, first disclosed by the Guardian. "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' internet activity on such a scale is completely false," they wrote.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, described the press reports about Prism as "outrageous". He insisted that the Facebook was not part of any program to give the US government direct access to its servers.

He said: "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of Prism before yesterday."

Zuckerberg also called for greater transparency. "We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."

Yahoo said: "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network."

The leaked National Security Agency (NSA) document obtained by the Guardian claims Prism operates with the "assistance of communications providers in the US".

The document names AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk and Yahoo and gives dates when they "joined" the scheme, aimed at intercepting data from people outside the US.'' The presentation talks of "legally compelled collection" of data.

All the companies involved have now denied knowledge of the scheme to the Guardian.

In one slide, the presentation identifies two types of data collection: Upstream and Prism. Upstream involves the collection of communications on "fibre cables and infrastructure as data flows past." Prism involves: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple."

Obama confirmed the existence of the scheme Friday and said Congress was "fully apprised" of the situation and that it was being conducted legally with a "whole range of safeguards involved".

But despite Obama's acknowledgment, senior figures said they remained puzzled and surprised by the news. Speaking off the record one said their company regularly complied with subpoenas for information but had never allowed "collection directly" from their servers.

Some speculated that the wording of the document was incorrect or that the author had over-hyped the scheme.

Security experts and civil liberty figures were less convinced. "I was assuming that these tech companies were just lying," said security guru Bruce Schneier. "That's the most obvious explanation."

"Could it possibly be that there's a department within these companies that hides this from the executives? Maybe," he said. "I don't know, we don't know. This points to the problem here. There's so much freaking secrecy that we don't know enough to even know what is going on."

He said he was not surprised by the news. "There are no surprises here. We all knew what was going on and now they have finally admitted it."

"The NSA would not have done this surreptitiously, they want the tech companies on their side," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "I can't make sense of their statements at all."

He said it was clear that tech companies in general were more than happy to co-operate with the US authorities and said he was puzzled why there seemed to be such a gap between the two sides' story.

Ali Reza Manouchehri, CEO and co-founder of MetroStar Systems, an IT consultant that works closely with government agencies, said: "There are situations that come up where they have to communicate with the security agencies. At the end of the day they are working in the interest of national security."

"I can't comment on what's going on inside the company. It's hard for me to believe that Google doesn't know," he said. "It is either transparent or it is surreptitious. It is hard for me to believe that at this level, at this volume it is surreptitious." He said if the companies really did not know then "we have some serious issues."

The news has sparked widespread concern in the US. Nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition at Progressive Change Campaign Committee calling on Congress to hold investigations.

 

[hiphop]

mama cass, I guess there are many interested readers on this topic, but everyone´s afraid to comment. Obama´s interpretation of free speech.

The NSA leaks are not surprising, rumors have been around since 5 years when they found the NSA room right at a Tier-1, methinks it was the AT&T building.

The leaks confirmed Big Brother. 1984 sales are on an all time high.

Of course, the UK, Canada, the Aussies and a couple of other countries work together with the NSA.

When I called the U.S. Embassy to ask where President Obama takes the legal right to spy on foreign citizens, they promised me to call back but did not. I wouldn´t have expected them to call back.

It is interesting to note that European citizens apparently have no chance to sue, because what is criminal in Europe, is allowed in the U.S. with a secret court and secret laws.

What a surprise that many European agencies apparently do cooperate with the NSA and have been continuing the cooperation after the Cold War ended.

European politicians (of the nation states and of the EU) are not interested in protecting the basic fundamental rights of their citizens. If they were, they would pull out of SWIFT, stop handing over flight data, stop the US-EU talks on a free trade agreement.

European politicians are unable to protect European businesses. They prefer to lick the feet of Big Brother. They have the same plans anyway: there´s not only PRISM and Boundless Informant, but also programs like INDECT were planned.

They love to spy on their citizens. To protect the richest 1%.

Everybody with one cell in his brain knows that the reasons quoted for running that kind of programs, ie. preventing terror attacks, are bogus and utter nonsense. Terrorists don´t use Skype or facebook or unecrypted emails to discuss about their plans. It is clear and evident that the mass surveillance targets the majority of innocent civilians.

Government wants control and breaches the constitution, not only in the U.S.

95% of U.S. mainstream media are owned by 6 corporations (start of the 80s it was around 50 large corporations). That´s why media tries to downplay the leaks and to discredit the whistleblower.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post is not what it once was when Woodward and Bernstein reported on the Nixon administration and Watergate. If you ask me, the NSAs spy programs pose a major threat to the free civilized world. But hey, they´re legal.

If I was a country who´s not on the U.S. friends list, like China, I would qualify the continued secret spying as an act of war. Interesting to see how the U.S. media lobbied against Chinese spying just before the leaks blew up. The Obama administration likes to create tension.

In the light of the recent events, and to contribute to the topic "Obama General Discussion" here´s an excellent article by the (traditionally leftist, as you all know) Guardian on Barack "Snoop" Obama:

I have watched Barack Obama transform into the security president | World news | The Observer

I really wonder what campaigners who did support Obama to be elected think of their President now. Are you still around, Obama/Joe Biden fans?

African Americans who hailed him as the one to bring freedom, to end war, to close Guantanamo etc. must be disappointed, all their hopes were ridiculed. The President loves toys like the drones he´s sending around the world to kill (many innocent) people. The NSA leaks are the icing on the cake.

Impressive result for the first African American President.

 

[Irvine511]

What does being black have to do with Obama's presidential powers and choices in regards to national security issues?

I'm sure we can all agree on the troubling aspects of the NSA, the come city of using drones, but why are you disappointed in him because he's black?

 

[hiphop]

why are you disappointed in him because he's black?

I´m not, I knew who financed his campaign. But a lot of his African American voters must be disappointed; many expected an African American to be a better President than Bush.

Here´s an update:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits

"There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

This included:

• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;

• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting delegates, was passed to British ministers."

 

[mama cass]

^that isn't anything to do with Obama, that's GCHQ in Britain...

 

[mama cass]

espionage is more common than we think - years back i was working at a "sensitive" international trade fair, and the conference room was swept every morning by security for bugs - blew my mind at the time lol

 

[Popmartijn]

"The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

^that isn't anything to do with Obama, that's GCHQ in Britain...

I have to say that with actions like these (also including his revelations about hacking attempts in Chinese computers) Snowden is becoming less a 'whistleblower' but more an ordinary 'traitor' endangering the security of a country. It's one thing to reveal that your own country is spying on its own citizens, but something else to reveal the actions to other countries. To me, this doesn't serve any 'higher motive' anymore (like informing your own countrymen about what's happening to them), but more an intention to damage countries (and their international relationships) just because you have the information.

 

[hiphop]

I have to say that with actions like these (also including his revelations about hacking attempts in Chinese computers) Snowden is becoming less a 'whistleblower' but more an ordinary 'traitor' endangering the security of a country. It's one thing to reveal that your own country is spying on its own citizens, but something else to reveal the actions to other countries. To me, this doesn't serve any 'higher motive' anymore (like informing your own countrymen about what's happening to them), but more an intention to damage countries (and their international relationships) just because you have the information.

When Prism and Boundless Informant were leaked, Obama, Alexander et al implied that the surveillance systems were only - or mainly - used for targeting terrorists, legally authorized by a secret court.

This revelation is proof that the U.S. President and the Head of the NSA lied again and informs us how deeply tied the secret services of U.S. and U.K. are.

Wait a minute, you are saying that Snowden has the intention to damage international relations? Was it Snowden who set up spy internet cafes and hacking Blackberrys at G20 meetings or the GHCQ with the NSA? Did Snowden accuse China of heavy spying before Prism was leaked, or did the Obama administration accuse China?

The secret services and the current U.S. administration are damaging international relations, Popmartijn, not the guy who exposed them snooping.

 

[Irvine511]

I´m not, I knew who financed his campaign. But a lot of his African American voters must be disappointed; many expected an African American to be a better President than Bush.

firstly, by virtually all measures, Obama is a much, much better president than Bush. my boxwood shrubs would have been a better president than Bush.

but i'm curious as to why you think race has anything to do with this, and why black people -- as opposed to, dunno, Jewish lesbians -- would be more disappointed with the Obama continuation of Bush era NSA policies.

 

[deep]

I think Obama is just staying true to his 1/2 white heritage.

 

[IWasBored]

I´m not, I knew who financed his campaign. But a lot of his African American voters must be disappointed; many expected an African American to be a better President than Bush.

You do know those "I'm gonna get me some Obama money" videos were fake, no?

 

[deep]

those may be fake,
they sure look real

 

[maycocksean]

Anybody else sense that Snowden has delusions of grandeur?

 

[Pearl]

Anybody else sense that Snowden has delusions of grandeur?

A little bit. He doesn't seem to realize that he may have caused more problems than solve them. He seems to have left his friends and family to fend for themselves too, which isn't heroic.

But I like how the media is criticizing and demeaning him, when they had to have been aware that the Patriot Act would've gone this far. It's like they hate him for doing the work they should've been doing.

 

[anitram]

I am a bit taken aback by the shear outrage and shock here. Did people really think that this type of surveillance doesn't go on? Were they asleep during the Cold War or oblivious to 9/11 and the way that governments globally reacted in the aftermath of those events?

Maybe it's because I was born in a country that was communist at the time and we all (correctly) assumed that we were being spied on 24/7, that this doesn't seem at all surprising to me. It's like getting confirmation of what anyone with an iota of common sense should have known.

None of that makes it an acceptable situation, mind you.

 

[deep]

acceptable, that is not so much the question for me,

is it tolerable? in this less than perfect world, yes.

 

[Irvine511]

there are no easy answers here. none. anyone who thinks this is simple either way is dead wrong.

i would cautiously say that i am willing to give up a modicum of my privacy in order to live in a more secure world. these fuckers want to go nuclear, and living in a city that's a prime target, i'd rather overzealousness on the side of caution. and given what i know about modern detective work performed by local police departments on even simple crimes, none of this surprises me in the least. doesn't everyone know that their cell phone is basically a GPS device? that you can log in to cameras filming on public streets? that, for example, Memphis could literally watch me walk from my office to the metro via public cameras?

there's of course tremendous potential for abuse, but at the same time, we are governed by laws, not by hand-rubbing, moustache-twisting villans. paranoia makes for a thrilling movie, but reality is so much more mundane than that.

 

[BVS]

I find the uproar about this pretty absurd. NOT THAT I'M EXCUSING IT, I just find it absurd.

First, people seem to really misunderstand what's going on here. SO FAR there is no evidence of true wiretapping or illegal bugging, etc. which I've heard some people say, so let's just get that clear.

Secondly, why the hell are any of you surprised?

Third, have you ever noticed that the advertisements or your Google searches seem to cater to your search patterns and internet habits? Why is it you weren't worried about corporations knowing everything about you, but now is where you draw the line?

Fourth, we invited this upon ourselves! I registered my first email account back in 1997, since then I can't tell you how many, I couldn't begin to tell you how many websites I've put my personal information in to make a purchase or register something, and then we start carrying smartphones that know exactly where we are at all times.


Terrorist and other evil have been using the same exact technology that we are, now some may think they know ways around this or that but the truth is, nothing over the internet is safe. NOTHING! My encryption probably can't be hacked by 90% of hackers out there, and I work for an IT company, but I guarantee you the government can, and if they can't today they will tomorrow. So hiphop don't kid yourself.

So, at the end of the day, what are you able to tolerate?

My feeling is that society goes through cycles, and these cycles are a way of naturally regulating ourselves. I just saw an article recently about how the next generation of voters will have a much bigger libertarian lean than the previous, I think it's due to having seen where intervening has gotten us, more relaxed views on drugs, etc. I think the same thing will happen with how much we are wired in and connected, technology will grow and it will always be a part of society, but I do think we'll go through cycles where there will be more and more that live "live off the grid" or try and find ways to separate "the grid".

 

[U2DMfan]

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/is-this-enough-for-impeachment-149802.html

Just thought it was interesting to read through some of that old thread.

 

[hiphop]

Irvine511 is ready to give up a modicum of privacy because he lives in Washington.

BVS says we shouldn´t complain because we invited this ourselves by opening email accounts.

Deep thinks its tolerable because the world ain´t perfect.

Pearl says people who expose a government spying on its own citizens, cause more problems. If it had stayed top secret, no problem.

 

[BVS]

Irvine511 is ready to give up a modicum of privacy because he lives in Washington.

BVS says we shouldn´t complain because we invited this ourselves by opening email accounts.

Deep thinks its tolerable because the world ain´t perfect.

Pearl says people who expose a government spying on its own citizens, cause more problems. If it had stayed top secret, no problem.

And you said Obama's race had something to do with this and terrorists didn't use technology... oh and a BUNCH of other nonsense.

Do I have the game right?

 

[Pearl]

Irvine511 is ready to give up a modicum of privacy because he lives in Washington.

BVS says we shouldn´t complain because we invited this ourselves by opening email accounts.

Deep thinks its tolerable because the world ain´t perfect.

Pearl says people who expose a government spying on its own citizens, cause more problems. If it had stayed top secret, no problem.

So?

 

[nathan1977]

Here's the problem as I see it.

My understanding is that the Patriot Act focused solely on suspects. The NSA's recent actions are clearly much more far-reaching than that. When everyone's cell records are being tapped -- when foreign nationals' emails etc are being watched -- when companies are being pressured by the government to give up their information -- when private organizations are forced to disclose information on their donors for the use of other organizations -- we have a problem.

Further, likening Constitutionally-protected liberties designed to protect us from government overreach to marketing choices that we make when we opt-in to email programs is a complete straw man. When we sign up Gmail, Facebook, etc., we opt in to their marketing. If we don't want to be tracked, we don't need to use those services. The government, by contrast, has given us no choice in the matter, and has further encroached on our Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. These are serious actions. We justify it now in the name of security, but what happens when/if those methods are used for nefarious ends?

 

[Irvine511]

That's one of the fundamental questions. I don't have an answer.

While there is much more accountability when it comes to government than with big business, generally speaking, you can't be audited or thrown into jail by big business.

 

[BVS]

Here's the problem as I see it.

My understanding is that the Patriot Act focused solely on suspects. The NSA's recent actions are clearly much more far-reaching than that. When everyone's cell records are being tapped -- when foreign nationals' emails etc are being watched -- when companies are being pressured by the government to give up their information -- when private organizations are forced to disclose information on their donors for the use of other organizations -- we have a problem.

Let's be careful using the term "tapped", there's no evidence of you or I being "tapped" yet. I'll be honest I haven't seen the bit about foreign nationals emails being watched, this is all foreign nationals?

Further, likening Constitutionally-protected liberties designed to protect us from government overreach to marketing choices that we make when we opt-in to email programs is a complete straw man. When we sign up Gmail, Facebook, etc., we opt in to their marketing. If we don't want to be tracked, we don't need to use those services. The government, by contrast, has given us no choice in the matter, and has further encroached on our Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. These are serious actions. We justify it now in the name of security, but what happens when/if those methods are used for nefarious ends?

That's missing my point. My point was why is it that you have no problem giving your information to MSN they turn around and sell and then they turn around and sell it to someone else, but for some reason the government who had a part in creating my data is suddenly scary. All I said is that it just seems odd.

 

[anitram]

L My point was why is it that you have no problem giving your information to MSN they turn around and sell and then they turn around and sell it to someone else, but for some reason the government who had a part in creating my data is suddenly scary. All I said is that it just seems odd.

Why is it odd? Is it not simply a matter of consent or lack thereof?

 

[BVS]

Why is it odd? Is it not simply a matter of consent or lack thereof?

No I understand the consent issue, although I would argue most people don't know what they're consenting to or not. But then what if MSN sold my info to corporation x and then corporation x sells or gives it to the government?

I guess I find it odd that people argue privacy, but the same exact data can be circulating through dozens or corporations as we speak and somehow that isn't an issue of privacy for them just because they clicked the "I agree" tab for the first seller.

 

[hiphop]

So?

You never saw an abstract?

It´s absurd that it does not disturb you when a priviledged group of people can snoop on you and everybody else at will, plus you pay a tax to finance this group of people.

And you said Obama's race had something to do with this and terrorists didn't use technology... oh and a BUNCH of other nonsense.

Do I have the game right?

No, I did not say Obama´s race "has to do with it".

Can you generalize a little more?

I said African Americans must be disappointed because when Obama was elected, it seemed like a big achievement for many African Americans. I have read countless messages in the Obama "yes we can" craze, and you can not deny that many African Americans were very proud that Obama is the first African American President in office. Some people who voted him expected him to be a good President because he is African American. They voted for change. I pointed out these voters might be disappointed because it is clear to see who he works for - the people who financed his campaign. Of course, also everyone else may be disappointed or not. Obama has not kept one single promise. He has not delivered to the American people.

Am I wasting my time replying to to someone who does´t want to discuss but take a cheap shot?

I guess so. Or what game were you referring to?

Bye, FYM! Keep throwing shit to see what sticks. I know I won´t be missed

 

[Irvine511]

It's amazing how the Euro Left and the American Right have so much in common.