Skip to main content

View Diary: What I Want to Know: 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn't Be Focusing on Glenn F**king Greenwald (722 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, well, I dislike GG, but I actually have a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    good impression of Snowden, tbh.  I think he is a good guy who is trying to do the right thing, although I also think he is naive in thinking that Hong Kong is independent.

    Since you're one person who is actually willing to engage in a constructive conversation without all the stupid dogmatic shit, let me ask you something:  how long is the NSA allowed to store the data that they have collected?

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:25:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  it seems forever as far as i can tell n/t (3+ / 0-)
    •  It depends on the source of the collection and (4+ / 0-)

      what they (in one document the NSA analyst) determine the importance of it is. It also depends on whether we are talking meta data or actual content.

      It seems with meta data they can collect it all and store it for years. The meta data coming from GCHQ in England seems to be stored for 30 days unless it is deemed important. This is probably due to the shear amount of data (600m calls a day).

      With content the procedure is a little different. The two procedural documents leaked the other day that were signed by Eric Holder seem to allow a few days to decide whether it is important, and then it can be stored longer. If it is deemed unimportant, or purely of an American person, then it is supposed to be deleted immediately.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:00:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok. I see. Thanks. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995, erichiro, 3goldens

        Please bear with me here:

        what exactly is the difference between metadata and actual content?

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:04:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Meta data is basically everything but the content (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence, erichiro, 3goldens

          With a telephone call the meta data is:

          The telephone number
          location
          time
          the receiving telephone number
          duration of call

          The content is the actual discussion between the two people.

          The FISA court order, which was the first thing to be leaked, allowed the NSA to collect all meta data, but not content, of all calls on the Verizon network within the united states, including local calls.

          Since the court order is to Verizon, it does not discuss the length of time the NSA will hold the data. Simply that they must hand it over.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:09:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ranger995, erichiro, 3goldens

            So the primary problem with this is that data is being collected en masse with what many would believe to be to little oversight and/or Democratic/public control?

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:16:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes that sums it up. A big argument here has been (7+ / 0-)

              between people who don't care about the collection of meta data and the people who do.

              There is a significant crowd who don't care that the government knows their location, who their calling, when they are calling people, etc..

              There are others who think that information can be used by the government to do things like disrupt protestors and such. Or undermine would be leaders of movements.

              The collection of content and government spying on emails and such is more of a gray area. The most revealing documents are the ones the Guardian published a few days ago. They are procedural rules that Eric Holder signed dealing with the collection of content for American persons.

              IMO, these documents are very cleverly written so that they clearly state that American persons' phone calls, emails, and such cannot be spied on. However, it allows for the analyst to listen in on Americans' phone calls, emails, etc. so that they can determine whether or not the person is in fact an American. All of this without obtaining a warrant, it is simply the discretion of the analyst.

              "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

              by ranger995 on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:26:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for taking the time to provide me (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ranger995, BlueDragon

                with some deeper insight.  I asked you because, due to some of our previous discussions on Afghanistan, I got the impression that you were honest with me and trying to be constructive even when we did not see eye to eye.  I'm far more inclined to listen to what you have to say than to pay heed to what GG has to say.

                I find this to be an exceedingly complex and difficult issue which deserves a lot of objective, profound, non-partisan, and non-hyperbolic thought.

                How does one find the right balance between the need for protection from actual, major threats and the need for personal liberty?  This is a really difficult and increasingly important question in our day and age, especially since we are all becoming so much more transparent due to our increasing electronic interconnectedness and the manner in which we use it.  And no, I'm not one of those people who naively believes that there are no real threats.  The problem is that I don't have access to the information about how real and major the threats are, so it is hard for me to make a judgement.  I am, however, also not naive enough to believe that too much power in the hands of pretty secretive govt. agencies can't lead to majore trouble and I tend to agree with Snowden that this can be a real problem if the wrong people get into power.

                This may sound bizarre to you, but my current impression is that both President Obama and Edward Snowden are trying to do the right thing and in some ways, both are displaying a certain level of naiveté.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:50:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and once they listen to your phone calls (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  etc. to determine if you are an American, they can decide if you are a threat, e.g. if you are involved in environmental politics.  then everything can be kept as long as they want to because you have been defined as a threat.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site