Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[lomatopo]

Secret Court: NSA Surveillance Program Was Unconstitutional

by BILL CHAPPELL

August 21, 2013 4:52 PM

The existence of the October 2011 secret court opinion — and the belief that it found some actions by the NSA to be unconstitutional — became public knowledge after it was discussed in a letter written by a government official to Sen. Rob Wyden (D-Oregon), the EFF says.

"The Court is troubled that the government's revelations regarding NSA's acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program."

Elsewhere, he calls the NSA's upstream collection "a small, but unique part" of the government's overall efforts that "acquires valuable information... but not without substantial intrusions on Fourth Amendment-protected interests."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/21/214212847/nsa-culled-tens-of-thousands-of-u-s-emails-yearly-fisa-opinion-says

[lomatopo]

What You Need to Know on New Details of NSA Spying

At key points along the U.S. Internet infrastructure, the NSA has worked with telecommunications providers to install equipment that copies, scans and filters large amounts of the traffic that passes through. This system had its genesis before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has expanded since then.

The Journal reporting demonstrates that the NSA, in conjunction with telecommunications companies, has built a system that can reach deep into the U.S. Internet backbone and cover 75% of traffic in the country, including not only metadata but the content of online communications. The report also explains how the NSA relies on probabilities, algorithms and filtering techniques to sift through the data and find information related to foreign intelligence investigations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579025222244858490.html

[lomatopo]

With New Leaks, More NSA Deception Is Exposed

NBC's latest scoop flatly contradicts Keith Alexander's claim that "we can audit the actions of our people 100 percent."

CONOR FRIEDERSDORFAUG 21 2013

Days ago, when the Washington Post reported on an internal NSA audit showing thousands of rules violations every year, civil libertarians got the hard proof of rights violations they've long sought. Yet defenders of the NSA insisted that the audit reflected well on the surveillance agency, arguing that a comparison of database queries to violations shows an extremely low error rate. As I explain at length here, that's an almost useless metric for exonerating the NSA. How easy to manipulate that ratio at an agency capable of carrying out automated queries by the millions!

The latest NSA defenses also elide the fact that the abuses documented in the May 2012 audit are the minimum number of violations committed by the NSA, not a comprehensive accounting. This is partly because, per the Post story, the audit "counts only incidents at the NSA's Fort Meade headquarters and other ­facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak­ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/with-new-leaks-more-nsa-deception-is-exposed/278885/

Edited August 22, 2013 by lomatopo

[chuckd]

My guess is nobody on this forum knew about the NSA's capabilities before there was an Edward Snowden controversy.

It would seem there is much more to this "phony scandal" than some might wish to admit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NSA surveillance reach broader than publicly acknowledged

Published August 21, 2013

The National Security Agency's surveillance network has the capacity to spy on 75 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Citing current and former NSA officials for the 75 percent figure, the paper reported that the agency can observe more of Americans' online communications than officials have publicly acknowledged.

The NSA's system of programs that filter communications, achieved with the help of telecommunications companies, is designed to look for communications that either start or end abroad, or happen to pass through the U.S. between foreign countries.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/nsa-surveillance-reach-broader-than-publicly-acknowledged/#ixzz2cfJPpCls

[manarak]

My guess is nobody on this forum knew about the NSA's capabilities before there was an Edward Snowden controversy.

It would seem there is much more to this "phony scandal" than some might wish to admit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NSA surveillance reach broader than publicly acknowledged

Published August 21, 2013

The National Security Agency's surveillance network has the capacity to spy on 75 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Citing current and former NSA officials for the 75 percent figure, the paper reported that the agency can observe more of Americans' online communications than officials have publicly acknowledged.

The NSA's system of programs that filter communications, achieved with the help of telecommunications companies, is designed to look for communications that either start or end abroad, or happen to pass through the U.S. between foreign countries.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/nsa-surveillance-reach-broader-than-publicly-acknowledged/#ixzz2cfJPpCls

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/556345-another-one-how-to-muddy-your-tracks-on-the-internetny-times/#entry5318046

;-)

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. Please stay on topic and limit your remarks about other posts to the subject of the thread.

[chuckd]

...and the hits just keep on coming.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 22, 3:12 AM EDT

NSA REVEALS MORE SECRETS AFTER COURT ORDER

BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND STEPHEN BRAUN

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has given up more of its surveillance secrets, acknowledging that it was ordered to stop scooping up thousands of Internet communications from Americans with no connection to terrorism - a practice it says was an unintended consequence when it gathered bundles of Internet traffic connected to terror suspects.

One of the documents that intelligence officials released Wednesday came because a court ordered the National Security Agency to do so. But it's also part of the administration's response to the leaks by analyst-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden, who revealed that the NSA's spying programs went further and gathered millions more communications than most Americans realized.

Article here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-21-15-07-51

[lomatopo]

In this hypothetical example, what do you think should happen?

You are an NSA analyst, monitoring a terror suspect: Mr. X, and though the “three-hop” search limit – the NSA’s documented search limit criteria – you identify someone, two hops removed from the initial suspect: Mr. X to Mr. Y to Mr. Z, who by the way might be linked by something as innocuous as a spam email promoting a new weight loss product, who is using a VPN and encrypted chat – which you are required to tap in to - to plan a crime: kidnapping, bank robbery or even murder-for-hire.

What do you do with this information?

Assuming you do not follow some procedure in place to pass this on to the local police, is there some criminal threshold, under which you “forget” about a potential crime?

NSA, DEA, IRS Lie About Fact That Americans Are Routinely Spied On By Our Government: Time For A Special Prosecutor

By Jennifer Stisa Granick and Christopher Jon Sprigman

It seems that every day brings a new revelation about the scope of the NSA’s heretofore secret warrantless mass surveillance programs. And as we learn more, the picture becomes increasingly alarming. Last week we discovered that the NSA shares information with a division of the Drug Enforcement Administration called the Special Operations Division (SOD). The DEA uses the information in drug investigations. But it also gives NSA data out to other agencies – in particular, the Internal Revenue Service, which, as you might imagine, is always looking for information on tax cheats.

The Obama Administration repeatedly has assured us that the NSA does not collect the private information of ordinary Americans. Those statements simply are not true. We now know that the agency regularly intercepts and inspects Americans’ phone calls, emails, and other communications, and it shares this information with other federal agencies that use it to investigate drug trafficking and tax evasion. Worse, DEA and IRS agents are told to lie to judges and defense attorneys about their use of NSA data, and about the very existence of the SOD, and to make up stories about how these investigations started so that no one will know information is coming from the NSA’s top secret surveillance programs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

For the record I am not pro-Drug dealer or pro- Tax Cheat.

Edited August 22, 2013 by lomatopo

[manarak]

In this hypothetical example, what do you think should happen?

You are an NSA analyst, monitoring a terror suspect: Mr. X, and though the “three-hop” search limit – the NSA’s documented search limit criteria – you identify someone, two hops removed from the initial suspect: Mr. X to Mr. Y to Mr. Z, who by the way might be linked by something as innocuous as a spam email promoting a new weight loss product, who is using a VPN and encrypted chat – which you are required to tap in to - to plan a crime: kidnapping, bank robbery or even murder-for-hire.

What do you do with this information?

Assuming you do not follow some procedure in place to pass this on to the local police, is there some criminal threshold, under which you “forget” about a potential crime?

There should be such a threshold, I would propose to set it at serious crimes committed on other persons, such as murder, kidnapping.

Sometimes the line between crime and terrorism is not easy to draw - sometimes terrorist groups commit common crimes.

[lomatopo]

There should be such a threshold, I would propose to set it at serious crimes committed on other persons, such as murder, kidnapping.

Sometimes the line between crime and terrorism is not easy to draw - sometimes terrorist groups commit common crimes.

The conundrum this scenario presents is that any evidence the NSA collected on Mr. Z would be warrantless and inadmissible. Further it, and the methods by which it was gathered, would be subject to "discovery" and become public knowledge, assuming you still want to give people the right to a trail by jury. Hence the authorities have to "lie" about how they became aware of illegal activities, if/when the NSA passes them information.

[lomatopo]

Barack Obama can’t get ahead of NSA story

President Barack Obama has the surveillance leak response down pat: Wait a couple of days after a rough story, then tell reporters most of what they already know.

The administration’s pattern was in full effect Wednesday, when it got lapped by the National Security Agency news cycle. While three senior officials were explaining newly declassified documents that were largely reported by the Washington Post last week, reporters wanted to know details about a fresh Wall Street Journal NSA scoop from the morning.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-nsa-95786.html

[lomatopo]

Snowden Effect Prompts Release of Info Showing Illegal NSA Domestic Surveillance

For months, the Obama administration fought to prevent the release of details about unlawful NSA surveillance of Americans. But now it has finally caved—publishing a startling secret court opinion that slams the NSA for illegally obtaining thousands of domestic emails sent to and from people with no link to terrorism.

Prior to the leaks of secret documents by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the existence of the classified opinion had been revealed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. This prompted rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pursue Freedom of Information Act litigation to obtain the opinion, which the Justice Department fought aggressively in the courts, as I reported here back in May. The DOJ argued that the release of the material would pose “exceptionally grave and serious damage” to national security.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/22/snowden_effect_prompts_release_of_info_showing_illegal_nsa_domestic_surveillance.html

At this rate the Government will probably end up releasing more detailed information about their surveillance activities than Mr. Snowden.

[manarak]

There should be such a threshold, I would propose to set it at serious crimes committed on other persons, such as murder, kidnapping.

Sometimes the line between crime and terrorism is not easy to draw - sometimes terrorist groups commit common crimes.

The conundrum this scenario presents is that any evidence the NSA collected on Mr. Z would be warrantless and inadmissible. Further it, and the methods by which it was gathered, would be subject to "discovery" and become public knowledge, assuming you still want to give people the right to a trail by jury. Hence the authorities have to "lie" about how they became aware of illegal activities, if/when the NSA passes them information.

In my scenario, they wouldn't have to lie.

In murder or kidnapping cases, Police could use information from NSA to start their investigation/action, but not use anything coming from intelligence agencies as evidence.

And intelligence agencies would not be required to reveal anything about the source of the information.

If police cannot find other evidence than from the NSA, then there is no case anyway.

[Chao Lao Beach]

[mania]

Not sure why your video was not playing locally but if I click the

title in the player it does play on you tube

Thanks it was an interesting report

Edited August 24, 2013 by mania

[lomatopo]

While it is fairly easy to get a Grand Jury to indict someone, we like to that in the U.S. you can indict a ham sandwich, it is another to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty. This assumes, if he surrenders, that the U.S. will grant Mr. Snowden his Sixth Amendment right rather than whisking him off to Guantanamo or using a Military Tribunal.

Forensic computer evidence would seem to form the bulk of the government's case, and it's not clear how much evidence Mr. Snowden left behind, or even if they could prove he either stole it or disclosed it. My sense is that the grab on Mr. Miranda was one of several efforts to obtain this evidence.

Additionally, in order to obtain a fair trial the defense would presumably be allowed significant leeway on discovery, which the government/NSA would hope to block, and which a judge or jury might decide precludes Mr. Snowden from receiving a fair defense.

Lastly, proving that Mr. Snowden's alleged crimes, especially in light of his motivation - that being to expose illegal/unconstitutional government activities, rather than for personal gain or political ideology, actually did any harm to the United States might be impossible to prove. All in all, it would be an interesting trial, but maybe the government will ultimately decide to drop these charges?

There is no statute of limitation for the Espionage Act, which was originally enacted in 1917. The government was not successful in prosecuting Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

[Publicus]

While it is fairly easy to get a Grand Jury to indict someone, we like to that in the U.S. you can indict a ham sandwich, it is another to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty. This assumes, if he surrenders, that the U.S. will grant Mr. Snowden his Sixth Amendment right rather than whisking him off to Guantanamo or using a Military Tribunal.

Forensic computer evidence would seem to form the bulk of the government's case, and it's not clear how much evidence Mr. Snowden left behind, or even if they could prove he either stole it or disclosed it. My sense is that the grab on Mr. Miranda was one of several efforts to obtain this evidence.

Additionally, in order to obtain a fair trial the defense would presumably be allowed significant leeway on discovery, which the government/NSA would hope to block, and which a judge or jury might decide precludes Mr. Snowden from receiving a fair defense.

Lastly, proving that Mr. Snowden's alleged crimes, especially in light of his motivation - that being to expose illegal/unconstitutional government activities, rather than for personal gain or political ideology, actually did any harm to the United States might be impossible to prove. All in all, it would be an interesting trial, but maybe the government will ultimately decide to drop these charges?

There is no statute of limitation for the Espionage Act, which was originally enacted in 1917. The government was not successful in prosecuting Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

The Espionage Act in its current form was written to put away the Ed Snowdens of the country for a long time. Snowden's Russian sausage is already cooked.

The Espionage Age of 1917 has been amended many times to the present. Most significantly, the original "intent requirement" was long ago eliminated.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington, is an expert on the Espionage Act.

Vladeck says the Espionage Act also presents another difficulty for the modern day defendant – it doesn’t contain what has come to be known in later decades as the ‘intent requirement.’

The government doesn’t have to show that someone who violates the Espionage Act meant to harm the United States or meant to help a foreign power or had some kind of bad faith motive. All the government has to show is that the defendant knew or should have known that the information, if it got out, would harm the United States or would help a foreign power.

And that has made a government prosecutor’s job fairly easy in espionage cases, he said.

As to Ellsberg and Russo, the government's case against each was thrown out of court due to numerous violations of the Constitution by the government in investigating and in in bringing charges against each.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-snowden/1731320.html

[lannarebirth]

While it is fairly easy to get a Grand Jury to indict someone, we like to that in the U.S. you can indict a ham sandwich, it is another to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty. This assumes, if he surrenders, that the U.S. will grant Mr. Snowden his Sixth Amendment right rather than whisking him off to Guantanamo or using a Military Tribunal.

Forensic computer evidence would seem to form the bulk of the government's case, and it's not clear how much evidence Mr. Snowden left behind, or even if they could prove he either stole it or disclosed it. My sense is that the grab on Mr. Miranda was one of several efforts to obtain this evidence.

Additionally, in order to obtain a fair trial the defense would presumably be allowed significant leeway on discovery, which the government/NSA would hope to block, and which a judge or jury might decide precludes Mr. Snowden from receiving a fair defense.

Lastly, proving that Mr. Snowden's alleged crimes, especially in light of his motivation - that being to expose illegal/unconstitutional government activities, rather than for personal gain or political ideology, actually did any harm to the United States might be impossible to prove. All in all, it would be an interesting trial, but maybe the government will ultimately decide to drop these charges?

There is no statute of limitation for the Espionage Act, which was originally enacted in 1917. The government was not successful in prosecuting Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

The Espionage Act in its current form was written to put away the Ed Snowdens of the country for a long time. Snowden's Russian sausage is already cooked.

The Espionage Age of 1917 has been amended many times to the present. Most significantly, the original "intent requirement" was long ago eliminated.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington, is an expert on the Espionage Act.

Vladeck says the Espionage Act also presents another difficulty for the modern day defendant – it doesn’t contain what has come to be known in later decades as the ‘intent requirement.’

The government doesn’t have to show that someone who violates the Espionage Act meant to harm the United States or meant to help a foreign power or had some kind of bad faith motive. All the government has to show is that the defendant knew or should have known that the information, if it got out, would harm the United States or would help a foreign power.

And that has made a government prosecutor’s job fairly easy in espionage cases, he said.

As to Ellsberg and Russo, the government's case against each was thrown out of court due to numerous violations of the Constitution by the government in investigating and in in bringing charges against each.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-snowden/1731320.html

So far the revelations by Snowden have only had a positive influence on the United States. It will be hard to make the case that the incredibly enduring and stable US of A has been harmed in any way. On the contrary, the revelations have exposed numerous violations of law and started a much needed discourse on unconstitutional abuses of power by government. Everybody wins except the spooks who are breaking the law, so where's the harm?

Edited August 24, 2013 by lannarebirth

[Credo]

So far the revelations by Snowden have only had a positive influence on the United States. It will be hard to make the case that the incredibly enduring and stable US of A has been harmed in any way. On the contrary, the revelations have exposed numerous violations of law and started a much needed discourse on unconstitutional abuses of power by government. Everybody wins except the spooks who are breaking the law, so where's the harm?

Unless you have inside information, you have no way of knowing the damage Snowden has done.

[Publicus]

While it is fairly easy to get a Grand Jury to indict someone, we like to that in the U.S. you can indict a ham sandwich, it is another to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty. This assumes, if he surrenders, that the U.S. will grant Mr. Snowden his Sixth Amendment right rather than whisking him off to Guantanamo or using a Military Tribunal.

Forensic computer evidence would seem to form the bulk of the government's case, and it's not clear how much evidence Mr. Snowden left behind, or even if they could prove he either stole it or disclosed it. My sense is that the grab on Mr. Miranda was one of several efforts to obtain this evidence.

Additionally, in order to obtain a fair trial the defense would presumably be allowed significant leeway on discovery, which the government/NSA would hope to block, and which a judge or jury might decide precludes Mr. Snowden from receiving a fair defense.

Lastly, proving that Mr. Snowden's alleged crimes, especially in light of his motivation - that being to expose illegal/unconstitutional government activities, rather than for personal gain or political ideology, actually did any harm to the United States might be impossible to prove. All in all, it would be an interesting trial, but maybe the government will ultimately decide to drop these charges?

There is no statute of limitation for the Espionage Act, which was originally enacted in 1917. The government was not successful in prosecuting Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

The Espionage Act in its current form was written to put away the Ed Snowdens of the country for a long time. Snowden's Russian sausage is already cooked.

The Espionage Age of 1917 has been amended many times to the present. Most significantly, the original "intent requirement" was long ago eliminated.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington, is an expert on the Espionage Act.

Vladeck says the Espionage Act also presents another difficulty for the modern day defendant – it doesn’t contain what has come to be known in later decades as the ‘intent requirement.’

The government doesn’t have to show that someone who violates the Espionage Act meant to harm the United States or meant to help a foreign power or had some kind of bad faith motive. All the government has to show is that the defendant knew or should have known that the information, if it got out, would harm the United States or would help a foreign power.

And that has made a government prosecutor’s job fairly easy in espionage cases, he said.

As to Ellsberg and Russo, the government's case against each was thrown out of court due to numerous violations of the Constitution by the government in investigating and in in bringing charges against each.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-snowden/1731320.html

So far the revelations by Snowden have only had a positive influence on the United States. It will be hard to make the case that the incredibly enduring and stable US of A has been harmed in any way. On the contrary, the revelations have exposed numerous violations of law and started a much needed discourse on unconstitutional abuses of power by government. Everybody wins except the spooks who are breaking the law, so where's the harm?

To absolutely dismiss or deny the fact Snowden stealing tens of thousands of documents and information from the NSA - the National Security Agency - is not harmful to the United States or helps a foreign power is itself a statement to be dismissed.

Snowden went directly to the CCP-PRC and then to Moscow which has given him asylum, temporarily.

Dismissing national security concerns over Snowden's actions is an incredulous and incredible statement that defies comprehension.

[boomerangutang]

So far the revelations by Snowden have only had a positive influence on the United States. It will be hard to make the case that the incredibly enduring and stable US of A has been harmed in any way. On the contrary, the revelations have exposed numerous violations of law and started a much needed discourse on unconstitutional abuses of power by government. Everybody wins except the spooks who are breaking the law, so where's the harm?

Like it or not, governments need to engage in at least some espionage, and have some secrets. Of course, there are abuses. The alternative is to always be the the victim of unforseen calamities - similar to what happened when the Boston Marathon got bombed. If you accept that fact that there are always those who have harmful intent towards a particular entity/government, then not doing clandestine research would be remiss.

The US is a big country and essentially the world's police force. It has several agencies that deal with trying to root out bad things before they happen. With such large programs, there are sure to be glitches or worse. As an American, I would rather have glitch-prone agencies than no agencies at all. Does Snowden think there should be complete disclosure of everything? He is entitled to his opinion (in a free speaking society, which America is). However, he stepped over the line by leaking info that he was entrusted with.

One result from Snowden's and the Wikileaks action, is foreign agencies will be much more reluctant to share info with the Yanks. Without sharing, there's less awareness of potential dangers. Example: Bomb makers in London were devising ways to make liquid explosives which looked just like soymilk you buy in a store. London investigations uncovered the ruse. If investigators had not done it undercover, they wouldn't have found anything incriminating. Furthermore, London shared their findings with Washington. Hence, one or more planes full of passengers were likely kept from getting blown up. Snowden and Wikileaks types would rather have complete openess - therefore; planes getting blown out of the sky would just be tough luck for those who die.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on topic.

[lomatopo]

NSA paid millions to cover Prism compliance costs for tech companies

The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian.

The technology companies, which the NSA says includes Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook, incurred the costs to meet new certification demands in the wake of the ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid

[lomatopo]

NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests

NSA said in a statement Friday that there have been “very rare” instances of willful violations of any kind in the past decade, and none have violated key surveillance laws. “NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities” and responds “as appropriate.”

The LOVEINT violations involved overseas communications, officials said, such as spying on a partner or spouse. In each instance, the employee was punished either with an administrative action or termination.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/

[lomatopo]

Lawmakers Probe Willful Abuses of Power by NSA Analysts

The leaders of U.S. congressional intelligence committees said they want to probe the intentional abuses of surveillance authority committed by some National Security Agency analysts in the past decade.

“I am reviewing each of these incidents in detail,” Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, said in a statement, after the NSA confirmed to Bloomberg News yesterday that some analysts deliberately ignored restrictions on their authority to spy on Americans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-23/nsa-analysts-intentionally-abused-spying-powers-multiple-times.html

[lomatopo]

An Open Letter to My Former NSA Colleagues

I can only guess how much more horrified the ex-NSAers I know—you, my former colleagues, my friends, my professors, and my mentors—must be. Unlike me, you have spent much of your working lives helping the NSA build its power, only to see your years of work used in a way it was never supposed to be used. You could speak out now in a way that violates neither your secrecy agreement nor your honor. It's hard to believe that the professors I know at universities around the country would remain silent as the NSA abuses their trust and misuses their work.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/nsa_domestic_spying_mathematicians_should_speak_out.html

[lomatopo]

NSA analysts knowingly broke surveillance rules

On Friday, an independent oversight board reviewing secret government surveillance programs also warned the Obama administration that national security agencies' rules governing surveillance are outdated and need to be revised to reflect rapid advances in technology.

The chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, David Medine, wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, urging that rules governing collection and retention of data about U.S. citizens be updated to "appropriately capture both the evolution of technology and the roles and capabilities of the intelligence community since 9/11."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/24/nsa-analysts-knowingly-broke-surveillance-rules/#ixzz2cwrPymnq

[lomatopo]

NSA having flashbacks to Watergate era

Not since the domestic spying scandals of the 1970s has the NSA faced such a crisis. But intelligence officials say the problems are fundamentally different.

The National Security Agency is facing its worst crisis since the domestic spying scandals four decades ago led to the first formal oversight and overhaul of U.S. intelligence operations.

President Obama acknowledged Friday that many Americans had lost trust in the nation's largest intelligence agency. "There's no doubt that, for all the work that's been done to protect the American people's privacy, the capabilities of the NSA are scary to people," he said in a CNN interview.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nsa-spying-20130824,0,6838536.story

[Scott]

Posts violating Fair Use have been deleted.

[Publicus]

This guy Snowden is diabolical, cunning, calculating, deceitful. Snowden means to harm the United States and to harm us severely. He needs to be nabbed and put away for life.

The NSA Has No Idea How Much Data Edward Snowden Took Because He Covered His Digital Tracks

The U.S. government's efforts to determine which highly classified materials leaker Edward Snowden took from the National Security Agency have been frustrated by Snowden's sophisticated efforts to cover his digital trail by deleting or bypassing electronic logs, government officials told The Associated Press.

The disclosure of Snowden's hacking prowess inside the NSA also could dramatically increase the perceived value of his knowledge to foreign governments, which would presumably be eager to learn any counter-detection techniques that could be exploited against U.S. government networks.

It also helps explain the recent seizure in Britain of digital files belonging to David Miranda — the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald — in an effort to help quantify Snowden's leak of classified material to the Guardian newspaper.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-covered-tracks-2013-8#ixzz2cyByd58M