Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald's Old Game (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He got one fact wrong (11+ / 0-)

    so disregard the whole story?

    And the servers the NSA directly accesses are still Facebook servers, they just aren't the main servers.  I'm sure this is to prevent the NSA from fucking up operations, not to protect anybody's privacy.

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:30:27 PM PDT

    •  Accidentally, that is. (5+ / 0-)

      To prevent the NSA from accidentally fucking up operations.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right, and until we know which information that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ashaman, kurt, deep info

      the companies hold has been made accessible to the government by ftp and which information has not been made accessible, it's a meaningless distinction.

    •  Actually, yes (6+ / 0-)

      There is a very clear distinction between the actual servers at any of these places and anything outside them.  The actual servers contain an immense amount of uncontrolled information.  Were the NSA reading them, there would be a significant threat of the agency trolling through data to which they should have no access, warrant or no.  The presence of a secondary server to which information is uploaded in response to a warrant is very different -- the NSA might still be getting information they shouldn't be getting, but there's an explicit warrant describing that information to the various private entities.

      •  FINALLY THE CORRECT ANSWER (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tony Situ, Sylv

        Anyone who does this routinely knows that this is a HUGE distinction.  
        Sending files voluntarily means you are controlling WHAT info. you are sending.  
        It is quantifiable, documented and CONTROLLED.
        Anyone who doesn't understand this distinction... you cannot be helped.

        •  Not correct (4+ / 0-)

          The files are not SENT voluntarily.

          I suggest you try and understand Section 702.

          •  Dude.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYFM

            In this case, give it a rest.  The techies are right here: it really does matter what kind of direct access is being provided under 702.  It's the difference between having a reader card in the National Archives and having access to a list of the contents: you can find out a lot from the metadata about who sent letters to whom, but it's not the same as knowing the contents of those letters.  From a series of letters between Mr. A and Mrs. B, we can tell that they were playing an important role in each other's lives, but we can't tell if they were having a torrid affair or were writing pointed letters to one another about a boundary dispute.  It gives us a reason to look more closely, but it doesn't answer the question.

            In this case, the NSA has access to the card catalog, but not the original documents.  Whether that access is too much in itself is still an open question -- but it's a very different question from what was alleged initially.

    •  "Kill the messenger" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, deep info

      Step 1 in how the defend the indefensible.

      Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

      by The Dead Man on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just one fact? (6+ / 0-)

      Well, that fact happens to be the entire premise of Greenwald's argument the NSA has DIRECT ACCESS to your Internet activity.

      Even The Guardian has to now acknowledge the loose way that their hero Greenwald plays with "facts" to push his agenda:

      UPDATE: A new article posted at the Guardian by Charles Arthur and Dominic Rushe walked back the “direct access” claim made in Greenwald’s original article and confirmed the FTP/Dropbox theory.

      The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.

    •  They do not have direct access to servers. (7+ / 0-)

      They are completely dependent on those companies to to access the information.They cannot just help themselves to any data they want, at any time they want as was implied in the initial stories.

      That is a big difference to some people.

      There is no need to repeat falsehoods. The issue just becomes more obscured when we insist on protecting false information. That is the kind of tactic we are supposed to be fighting against.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:27:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clapper and Co wouldn't mislead us twice, right? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

        by quagmiremonkey on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:48:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it's all a conspiracy btwn NSA and tech corps (0+ / 0-)

          Of course no one has actually been able to document an actual misuse of the program, but we can still feel free to engage in precog concern anyway!

          Again, truth matters. If we waste this opportunity repeating falsehoods and unproven assertions of conspiratorial behavior it will be our own fault.

          I fear this is all going to lead to more attempts to regulate the internet as people are going to start warning about the coming wave of untrustworthy leakers.

          Those that want to see repeal and reform efforts cannot hold others accountable if we do not hold ourselves accountable.

          The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

          by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Document a misuse? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info, Lost and Found

            You're joking right? How long have you known about it?

            Who precisely can "document a misuse?"

            Hell, for that matter, did anyone one ever document a "misuse" of warrantless wiretapping by Bush?  No right? Well that was ok then?

            •  A day or two before the leak, I think (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ranger995, deep info

              http://ccdcoe.org/...

              It's unfortunate that the remarks weren't published. I hope they will be. I've heard they were absolutely fascinating.

              http://www.vm.ee/...

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:47:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No crime committed. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ

              I know that you understand that there is a court order in this instance as well as congressional oversight. Big difference than what went on with Bush.

              We both know that there was no illegality "exposed" here.
              And spare me the discursive maneuvers, I know you are perfectly capable of staying on point.

              If we do not cease with the hyperbole and falsehoods we will waste an opportunity to address the real problems.

              So blast away Armando. I'm bored with ya.

              Be well!

              The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

              by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 10:22:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The court itself committed a crime. (0+ / 0-)

                The so-called FISA court order revealed by the Guardian -- go read it -- is a "general warrant" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Look up the 4th amendment on Wikipedia and learn something about "general warrants".  

                The court order also contains an unconstitutional gag order in violation of the First Amendment.

                AND the court order was illegally marked as "top secret" in violation of classification law.

                If you apologists persist with excusing the inexcusable we will waste an opportunity to address the real problems.

              •  Under Section 702? (0+ / 0-)

                No I do not understand there is a court order.

                As for the Section 215 order, it is a shocking order no?

                Look, I am sorry, but the inability to grasp Section 702 seems to be the heart of your misunderstanding.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site