More Claims From NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice 271
eldavojohn writes "Russell Tice, former NSA employee & whistleblower, has revealed yet more details claiming that wiretapping was combined with credit card data to target civilians. He also suggests the CEOs of major companies hold the truth: 'To get at what's really going on here, the CEOs of these telecom companies, and also of the banking and credit card companies, and any other company where you have big databases, those are the people you have to haul in to Congress and tell them you better tell the truth.' Will Congress follow his suggestions?"
This adds to information revealed by Tice last week that the wiretaps targeted journalists in particular.
Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
People are saying this guy was just a mid level analyst. Does he have any hard evidence or is he just drumming up publicity to sell a book?
Re:Hard evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Does he have any hard evidence
What if he does? How long before "certain elements" of the media and body politic start accusing him of treason for how it was acquired or the fact that he released it?
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Informative)
It's only treason if it's true.
In other words, "you were right, go directly to jail, do not pass Go."
Seems to me he is playing his best card by stirring things up and trying to shame Congress and the administration into doing their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh?
Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.
A rehash (Score:2)
This is just another rehash of the same Olbermann interview... and like the previous one, he still doesn't offer any specifics.
Re: (Score:2)
It really comes down to the following difficult decision: who do you trust more. The last administration or a mid level NSA worker with little to no proof?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I don't believe he is in possession of stolen classified information. He probably doesn't want to spend tens of years in a federal prison and/or be fined up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"Hard evidence" for this sort of wrong doing would fall under the above category, and comes in neat little binders warnings written in large very unfriendly letter. Whistleblower status would not protect him from prosecution from violating federal laws.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Informative)
The CEO of Qwest Communications made the same claim and he ended up in jail [washingtonpost.com]. They were the only telco that refused to turn over caller records without a proper subpoena. He also claims that the wiretapping program began before 9-11. And he isn't the only one [wired.com].
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
He's credible and yes has plenty of proof.
The guy is basically a hero - he stood up and respected his oath to the constitution as well as the NSA's own policies "Thou shalt not spy on Americans;" at great risk to himself - I know I would never want to be on the bad side of any of our Intelligence agencies.
He is already having to put up with FBI intimidation.
I know I don't want to live in a world where the sort of corruption and tyranny we've seen since 9/11 doesn't only increase in scope, but is unchecked and legitimized (attempts at legitimization with ex post facto immunity and other such things seem to be being considered).
I will really be watching Obama on this to see if his actions live up to his rhetoric.
People who value our heritage as Americans and our constitution who are in government service and who are willing to stick their necks out to do the right thing deserve massive respect. I hope that there are more people like Tice in these agencies, because our constitution and the laws surrounding intelligence gathering are extremely important to ensure that these powers aren't abused. We need intelligence agencies, as much now as ever - and I am sure that most of the people who work for these agencies are good, upstanding people - but with the way compartmentalization works it is very easy for some extremely shady stuff to go on (EG international drug trafficking, etc) - this is how it has been for a long time, and that's not going to change - but as far as spying on Americans and wholesale data collection without warrants - there are reasons why this isn't and shouldn't be allowed - when you add in the fact that journalists now know that they especially are targets for government surveillance it doesn't bode well for any sort of "democracy."
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?
Good thing Obama filibustered that thing like he promise.... oh, never mind.....
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
obama this and obama that.
1) he's human
2) humans are corruptable
3) presidency always ALWAYS corrupts (its too much power for any single human being to weild)
draw your own conclusions.
I expect nothing 'new' from obama. the machine is what matters and he's only a small cog; a figurehead. the machine LIKES power and will never give it up once it has it. have we not seen that play over and over, in history?
obama won't be as evil as bush but he's human and will be corrupted by the power he received. its not his fault but ours for giving TOO much power, essentially unchecked by The People, to our own government. the gov no longer works for us, it thinks we work for it. its already broken beyond repair, sorry to say.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:4, Funny)
Your sig is wrong it wasn't safe at all! :(
obama is better then bush, (Score:3, Funny)
just today signed bill strengthing anti pay discrimmination law; I know, I know, it is a small step that still leaves the burden on the employee, but there will be a lot of little things like that the will help
also - i think this is important- the POTUS, in toto, has a LOT of jobs at his disposale - not just direct appointees, but 2o and tertiary appointees that add up to the 10s of thousands; with obama, this will mean defunding of the right wing wackos and more money to the right people; the net effect is
Re: (Score:2)
Any chance Obama was privy to additional information that made him change his mind? If that were the case, he really couldn't come out and say "There's information that I have been told but I can't tell you what it is but just trust me." I would have voted against him if he did that. Especially after becoming president, there are many promises that you simply can't keep because you didn't have enough information.
Your post basically says there is no hope so don't try to change anything. Instead, you shou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know this how?
Not saying you're wrong, mind you, though I don't think Bush was as evil as the left made him out to be. But how do you know this?
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but no one goes around calling him, "evil"."
You should read more blogs; lots of people think Lincoln was evil for destroying the Constitution in order to centralise power in DC.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.
He was the first Dictator of the United states. A Despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for voicing an opinion against the war.
No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.
Of interest also.. is if you look at this shot of his chair at the Lincoln memorial http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg [destination360.com] There are fasces on his chair, you have seen them before but might not know what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces [wikipedia.org] Fasces are where we derive the term "fascist". The individuals are the rods, bound by a cord or "the state", and anyone who is not.. gets the axe.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops didn't mean to respond to this one too.. ahh well so much for my karma. ;-)
Re:Hard evidence (Score:4, Informative)
Fasces - the original symbol of Roman power. A Senator's posse would carry the bundle where they went and untie it for use in rough situations. Whoever his best warrior was would grab the ax, everyone else grabs a stick and starts smashing heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and mod me flamebait or troll. It appears that is the necessary reaction to cal
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for a civil war. Please don't compare the two.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, replaced Maryland's gov't with a puppet government, garrisoned Missouri and Maryland, declared laws effective where he had no sovereignty (yet didn't apply them to his own jurisdiction), and greatly increased federal control over the states, leading us up to some the mess we have now.
I'd say Lincoln might have been the worst president we had, hands-down. He's not the benevolent saviour everyone claims in the history books.
I'd call him distinctly evil.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that Lincoln was the worst president that we ever had - indeed, I think he was among the better. This thinking is, however, based on an "ends justifies the means" analysis rather than a belief he should have done what he did the way he did it.
But, I am always amazed and saddened by the whitewashed version of history about Lincoln that is taught in schools. I suspect faced with a multiple choice test question of "Who said the following and subsequently affirmed it?":
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
that the vast majority of High School graduates in the U.S. would cross Lincoln's name off the list almost immediately while trying to determine the answer by the process of elimination. Of course, they would be very wrong to do so as Lincoln said just this (and affirmed it later) in the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on September 18, 1858. [google.com]
Although, such a statement must be taken in historical context, to pretend that Lincoln vigorously championed equality between races (as many seem to think) is a fantasy.
Just a bit of historical reality to consider...
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so that means ... that there's nothing to look for? How does that work?
It means the savior is a calculating (some would say lying) politician like any other, all claims to "change" notwithstanding. There is still a large contingent of followers who refuse to accept this and provide all manner of rationalizations.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth"
Our Savior, the Almighty, the All Powerful, the One, Barry.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly republican, the intended application of science is not a reference to "magic stuff".
Re: (Score:2)
I think your opinion of Barry and of Science are both higher than is warranted.
Of course if you doubt Barry's demi-god status among his supporters, you simply have to read more Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I find your views both unpatriotic and regressive.
The demi-god argument is tired and baseless. "Barry" is not Charlie Manson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A gaffe is when you say there are 57 states in the union instead of 50."
I suppose you looked it up?
"And I guess "progressives" know all about reiterating baseless assertions ad infinitum. they've had 8 years of practice."
Oh snap, another argument killer. Wait, isn't a third of that line mine? Logic, does not involve redecorating language to serve your own ends, that is rhetoric or public relations. Are you a commercial or do you have a cognitive opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
"I suppose you looked it up?" - no, I remember it quite clearly.
"Wait, isn't a third of that line mine?" - I know how you "progressives" love to recycle crap. But does make the statement any less true? Feel free to reiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an admission of the nature of George W. Bush. See because, anything not Republican is by definition a polar opposite. BTW as a Liberal that would like to attend church I find the conflating of Religion and Politics to be both an act of false prophecy and a violation of the first amendment.
Yes I am beginning to believe that ALL conservatives are FAR out on the fringe. The republican fringe has been centralized.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it does. I believe it was to allow the companies that allowed for International-Domestic wiretaps to occur without a warrant from the FISA courts to not be persecuted due to some sort of "duty to stop terrorism" or some other trumped up charge. Yes, it was stupid, yes I'm still mad that our Pres. didn't stand up like he said he would.
However, If you are inferring that telecom immunity was to allow ALL wiretaps on anyone anywhere in t
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory.
Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked there in the black tower at Ft Meade (and more importantly, the lower brick building with the looooong hallways that is connected to it, which is where the real work gets done), this guy is appearing to be less and less believable.
There one thing that rings the BS bell for this guy: NSA is VERY compartmentalized. Information simply does not cross boundaries there, and there are multiple checks and curbs to see that compartmentalized intelligence is not shared out, so that the sources and methods are protected. In the past, there have (allegedly) been times when people died or bad events were allowed in order to preserve sources and methods. This is RELIGION at NSA: protect sources and methods, PERIOD. That means compartmentalization really slices the world up, and you only get to see your sliver of it as an analyst.
That's one of the major frustrations I and others had there when working there as an analyst: you only get blindered, partial, or gappy info and data. Many times, the best you get are "sanitized" analyst/reporting products from other programs and compartments that has been scrubbed so clean of sources and methods that it is scarcely useful. This makes one's analysis necessarily incomplete in many case because one simply do not have the raw data on hand except that for which one's own compartment is responsible. As an analyst, you end up using hedge-words, and all kinds of "fudge factor" language.
So I doubt anyone his level or near his level (above him) has that much scope, nor has that sort of visibility into programs across such a broad swath of intelligence collection, processing, analysis and reporting. Because it would ring alarm bells in personnel security if one person of that level were to be read-on to so many special compartmented access programs, sufficent enough to be privy to so many programs, sources and methods.
Furthermore, he cites no real specifics in these cases, not a shred of *actionable* evidence, only vague and overly-broad allegations, all given in a conspiracy-tinged "dramatic" way.
He may have reported some issues correctly regarding telecom intercepts (the legality of which have been upheld, and which the Obama administration seems to find useful now that they are tasked with protecting the nation), but a lot of this seems to me to be simply speculation on his part.
The applicable USSIDs and Presidential Directives are pretty tight about these sorts of things, and the NSA Inspector General pounds people for violating these sorts of things. This is another reason Tice's claims seem hollow to an insider(aside from the utter lack of actionable specific hard evidence): he apparently never went to the IG.
Initially his claims appeared to merit attention, but all in all, Tice is beginning to sound more like a crank who wants face-time on Olberman than anyone with a legitimate, actionable claim, with evidence to back it up.
Advice from one ex-"A wing" denizen: Start naming names, places, and activities, ones that can be verified by the IG and the US Attorney General; they love to rip NSA program managers. Otherwise, Tice needs to realize he's not "Mother" and this isn't Sneakers.
Re: (Score:2)
He has the burden of proof.. but perhaps the NSA should just open that door up to a few people.. how about let Bruce Schneier in there, I would trust him.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? Can I have a source on this please? Sounds like a story I'd really like to hear, because as of right now my sympathies lie with Wilson and his wife, but if what you say is true, that situation would change quickly.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Russell Tice found dead by apparent "suicide" in his residence.
apparent "suicide" twice ... (Score:3, Funny)
Yea, would that be two gun shots to the head, as the first one didn't finish him off
Re:apparent "suicide" twice ... (Score:5, Funny)
nah, cheney will just invite him out for a hunting trip.
you'll never hear a peep from him after he opens the invitation. some letters can be more chilling than National Security Letters..
Re: (Score:2)
"Suicide by gunshot from outside his car with the windows closed. "
"Suicide by shotgun in the middle of the back."
Both real cases if I could bother to find them. As I won't, only the conspiracy theorists will believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
I might be willing to pay attention if the site were a wee bit more credible.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a list of names with no proof at all. Start doing web searches on the first couple names and it will quickly become apparent(you could start with the snopes entry).
No (Score:2, Interesting)
Congress will not follow his suggestions. That would be the shocking news story.
Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama hasn't been flat-out lying about his desire for a government that obeys the law, then does anyone know why he supports this kind of BS?
So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
p>So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.
It's been only a week. Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.
This is going pretty OT, but it's going to bite him in the ass when he's running for a second term and people are asking why he didn't change everything he promised.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll only bite him in the ass if the only thing his administration is known for by then is his campaign promises.
People forgive not being perfect if they perceive you are not just doing 'the best you can' but actually having an effect.
The folk who won't forgive him regardless, frankly are the same folk who will be gunning for him no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has the power to obstruct everything obama tries to do. Just like Gowron trying to force Martok into no-win battles, Congress can make obama look bad pretty easily.
If he's smart, he'll call for america's support and ask them to pressure their reps in congress not to stonewall him. Then, if his programs don't go through, he can blame congress for sticking a big fat foot in the way and tripping him up.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, we (the people) should (according to Obama) want Congress to be his rubber stamp, instead of the previous administration being Congress's rubber stamp.
Honestly, I'd prefer them to argue and compromise, instead of either branch running roughshod over the other. That whole checks and balances bit, if it hasn't been completely thrown out with the rest of the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's time we contain the optimism and start looking a little more critically at our new president. I voted for him and I believe he's the most intelligent and charismatic leader we've had since I've been alive, but thus far his pattern of leadership has been (perhaps with the exception of Gitmo) to simply give everyone whatever they're asking for. Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.
And let's not forget that Obama was the one who supported the FISA amendment which, in addition to granting the telecom industry immunity from lawsuits for breaking privacy laws, also allows the government to wiretap without a warrant or court approval for up to a full week. Of course, it's hard to say where he'll stand on it now that he's president, because he was against the bill when running against Clinton, yet supported it when running against McCain and I can't tell that the bill changed during that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.
And the shutting down of Guantanamo, and the outlawing of torture in the military.
It's been a mixed bag, certainly, but it hasn't been all bad.
And for the record, no one believes this kind of deficit spending is sustainable in the long-term. But the point is to not have to do it for the long term...
Re: (Score:2)
Well if this second bailout gets passed we the people have a $1.6 trillion bill to pay on top of all the other debts.
I would have rather seen a better use of the remaining part of the first bailout package and repayment by the companies which got funds then a second package.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.
Have you seen the number of "executive orders" he's written already? The cost of these orders will soon exceed the entire budget of Bush's entire presidency, including the cost of the Iraq and Afgan wars. He's already allocated billions each for free abortions and voter fraud groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a citation or link for these claims, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Yes, there are a number of executive orders that modern presidents sign on Day 1. It's both symbolic of the direction they want to go, and to get things moving in their direction.
"billions each for free abortions and voter fraud groups."
Executive orders are official documents of the United States, and are recorded. I realize that it's almost certainly out of date, but something similar to what is at: http://www.a [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw that movie, with an iceberg, violins and Leonardo DiCaprio not dying nearly soon enough (like 5 minutes into the film) - or something like that.
Except in this version, I think the Captain responsible has just managed to escape on his own life raft... The next reel should either be very exciting or very, very sad. I expect popcorn sales to sky-rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Things move pretty quick most of the time in the government.
Yeah, a week isn't really a rational amount of time.
I doubt he voted for him, or anybody, becasue he's so quick to complain...but has no specific complaints.
finally, the tilde repleces other punctuation. for example:
You don't type "Watch out.!"
You can type "Watch out." he yelled or just "Watch out!"
So for the tilde you could do "Watch out!" he said sarcastically, or just "Watch out~"
Of course I don't know why your yelling your sig in the first plac
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What makes you think he does?
Because he voted for a bill which: [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would we assume that? This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.
For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it. He's a politican. Politicians lie. They are, in large part, corrupt, morally bankrupt, bought and paid for, and self-serving. And the higher up the ranks you go, the more likely that is the case. In fact, that may be the only way to get to the top spot anymore. I would love to live in a world where that's not the case, but I don't, and neither do you.
Re: (Score:2)
...the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government....
William Lynn, while working as a lobbyist recently, ALSO was the most recent Undersecretary of Defense under a democratic president (Clintonâ(TM)s second term). He was nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Hmmm, he was an undersecretary of defense under Clinton, now is a deputy secretary of defense. I wonder how he got the job- could it be that he was qualified?!
I don't know much about the other, I'll have to check it out later today.
Re: (Score:2)
He may well be, and that's entirely irrelevant. If Obama wants to just hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of industry ties, then do it. But don't first go on this grandstanding routine about "This is a new era of ethics. We're not going to do all that shady stuff other administrations do like hire lobbyists." If being a lobbyi
Re: (Score:2)
Change of opinion is change, right ?-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in.
Not to make excuses for politicians, but it's not as if the entire intelligence community gets changed with each changing administration, especially not within the first few months.
Obama does still have to work with these people to keep the nation safe. Most of the people working in the CIA, NSA and whatnot did not start when he did. Making dramatic changes immediately and offending them from day one would be a pretty stupid move.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about the order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility over the next year?
What about his executive order disallowing any interrogation techniques not defined in the Army Field Manual (i.e. no waterboarding, no torture)?
What about telling the EPA to look into letting California define their own, stricter auto emissions standards [reuters.com] (instead of locking them to the federal standards like Bush did)?
What about signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act just yesterday?
What about striking down Bush's ban on [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's done more good in one week than GWB did in 8 long years.
Depends on how you define good. Allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats determine how cars should be made, and possibly funding thousands of abortions against the vehement objections of those who pay taxes might not be considered good. But we shall see how it all turns out.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yeah, you drank the coolaid (Score:5, Informative)
The Obama administration is continuing to advance the same legal arguments the Bush administration used.
Empiricism puts the lie to your lies: "In a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after September 11, 2001," the Post added." [google.com]
Obama isn't a saint, and I haven't said he is. But is Obama better than Bush by any number of substantive measures, just a week or two into his first administration? You bet he is.
Corrupt CEOs (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any doubt left that the corporate aristocracy in this country is rotten to its core?
Re:Corrupt CEOs (Score:5, Funny)
It's not rotten, it's in fact a very well-functioning oligarchy.
Most media outlets ignoring this (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting that most media outlets are ignoring this. Of course, it took them a little time to get onto the original NSA/AT&T story, which broke online (at Wired, I think) before it went mainstream. When I read it online, I made sure to send messages to several media outlets, including CNN, about this. I never got any replies, but it was nice to see them pick up on the story, and I like to think that maybe I helped the process along.
What I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't hurt for some folks here to take a few minutes to contact one or more news outlets and send them links to the video interviews on MSNBC, Wired articles, etc. Whether this story is real or fabricated is unknown at this point, but it's potentially big enough that it needs wide coverage.
So let's all send this in to CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. and see if they haven't covered it because they aren't aware of it or because they're deliberately ignoring it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that most media outlets are ignoring this.
Yeah, you'd think the "specifically targeting journalists" part would garner some media attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Or scare them off.
Re: (Score:2)
Still More Surprises (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been a likely scenario for quite a long time. The transactional data cooperation most likely predates Bush #43. It is the simplest reason for the decades of wanton privatization of transaction processing and personal data warehousing.
The collective shrug of the shoulders in Congress should surprise no one. Most of all, it should come as no surprise to anyone hanging around slashdot.
The notion that your daily life is somehow private should have died about 15 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And whether those new webcams in your office are working...
Re: (Score:2)
And what would be the alternative to privatization? Let some government agency do the transaction processing and personal data warehousing. Like, let's say, the NSA?
We need investigations (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what someone would say if he were flogging a book.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a partisan hack who did not like the previous administration.
and
This is exactly what someone would say if it were true and he were loyal to America rather than the party in power at the time.
Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a disgruntled ex-employee fired for insubordination.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were flogging a book.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a partisan hack who did not like the previous administration.
and
This is exactly what someone would say if it were true and he were loyal to America rather than the party in power at the time.
Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does.
Not disagreeing with you. However.
The problem
Re:We need investigations (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't this particular executive or that individual board member being corrupt. The problem is much, much larger than that. The larger any corporation is, the more wealth it controls, and the more power it has over its customers, the people it employs, and the government it lobbies, the more corruption there will be. Period. It's just human nature.
You can pass all the laws against corruption you like, try to implement all the oversight you possibly could, but as long as the corporation keeps growing in size and scope, controlling ever more areas of people's lives and controlling ever more vast sums of wealth, the problems will persist and get worse.
Every time another corporate venture is started, new department created, new tax shelter set forth, corporate corruption *will* grow along with it. It's as unavoidable as entropy.
Every time the public demands that corporations assume a new responsibility or provide a new product or service it also increases the power and wealth it controls and along with it the opportunities and incentives for corruption. The founders of our country envisioned/intended a small, relatively weak federal government with barely enough revenue & powers to accomplish only the bare necessities of a central government. Unfortunately, this allows supercorporations to run amok.
At this point in our history, corporate America has grown so large and corrupt that I believe that it is in a feedback-loop that will only be halted when the whole country collapses from the weight of the "executive class" and devolves into chaos. It won't be pleasant, likely very, very bloody with staggering numbers of deaths, and makes me glad I'm rather old as I'll hopefully be dead before the collapse happens. Although it may well be closer than I or anyone else suspects.
I am starting to wonder (Score:2)
Initially I really didn't question his story, in part because I can really see this kind of thing out of the previous administration, in part because there's been real evidence of domestic wiretapping. However as he keeps "revealing" more and more, I'm wondering more and more if he isn't making it up. Not the whole thing, of course, but large parts of it. You know something like the NSA did domestic wiretaps, which it shouldn't, but they were in fact tightly constrained to only targeting terrorists and only
Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait. . .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, all we could do now is prosecute them and possibly throw them in federal PMITA prison.
Duuh, looks like he's lying (Score:2)
Re:Duuh, looks like he's lying (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not saying, "Look in Area 51 and all will be revealed." He's saying, "Haul these CEO's in to testify." Now, there are real questions of whether the technology is even plausible for interstellar travel - there's pretty good physics that says you can't get from one star to another in reasonable time with reasonable energy expenditure. But the technology for spying on us? Come on, there's enough technical expertise even within the community reading this thread to build, link, and mine the databases as it's suggested the NSA, phone and credit companies have done. And I'm sure some of us have pitched such designs to the government - direct knowledge, I know at least one guy who has, and got a contract from the pitch, pre-9/11. There had to have been hundreds, even thousands of pitches to and within the government to set up more of this stuff after 9/11. Now, on what reasonable basis do you believe the Bush administration wouldn't have bought some of these pitches? Our confidence that such programs are in place should approach unity. Talking to the CEOs whose cooperation would be required to pull this stuff off is a good place to start uncovering them.
Re: (Score:2)
Moron (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Timing (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been holding my fire until Obama gets his AG pick confirmed, and the stimulus package passed. No one can expect anyone, even Obama, to change the course of justice overnight. And we do have many pressing issues that must be dealt with now.
But the Senate committee just voted to confirm Holder, and the vote on the general floor is expected to confirm him as well. And the House just passed the stimulus package by a large margin; it looks like it's on the road to passage.
So those two factors, plus the absence of a single Republican vote in support of a response to our national economic emergency, despite Obama's kowtowing to the "concerns" of Republicans, gives me hope that a proper, deep, wide, and comprehensive ass-kicking is coming from the boots of Lady Justice.
If not, then we have definitive proof that some people ARE above the law, and that the law therefore applies to no one. And it becomes the right and duty of the American people to punish their representatives accordingly.
What possible incidents from NSA data mining?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok my question is can this /. community isolate or expose the methods of what the NSA has been doing, and has the NSA been feeding these data mining systems into other areas of the government or military?
Specifically you guys should look at US NORTHCOM (northern command), Homeland Security dept, and the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency. I strongly suspect that these groups put together have fed illegally obtained data into the law enforcement apparatus (the NGA and NORTHCOM had a presence at the Republican National Convention here in Minnesota - these are military agencies!)
NGA's website talks a lot about the data feeds they create for the NORTHCOM/DHS National Incident Management System (NIMS). We could easily find that various events like raids were generated via illegal data mining... Where is the manifestation of law enforcement ACTIVITY from data mining collection??
How to approach this systematically, that is what I'm asking you folks about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
Orwell was an optimist.
Re:Once again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said this before and will say it again
Well, Mr. Coward, you do post more often than anybody else at slashdot. Your UID must be what, minus five hundred?
To have the level of overarching view this guy claims to have, he'd have to be Director of NSA (DIRNSA)
You, perhaps?
I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career.
Why would you expect us to believe that?
This guy is full -o- shit.
He's putting his name on his accusations, you aren't. Who do you think is more credible?
Re:Once again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I, like so many others posting on this thread, value my anonymity and exercise it at will.
We have also assigned a value to your anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career.
The first rule of Fight Club: DON'T talk about it.