Customize

NSA LEAKS

Discussion in 'Anonymous News' started by Anonymous, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    That won’t work, in any capacity, other than waste you own time.
    The problem is that you are making a suggestion (with the emails) without the understanding needed to see why it is bollocks. The later comment is illustrative of your lack of knowledge on this.

    This probably comes across as quite a cuntish thing to say, but the lack of technological understand among the general populace (including judges and lawmakers) is a large reason why the NSA got away with this shit. As soon as activity involves a computer a sizeable part of the population are prevented from understanding that activity because of this woeful lack of knowledge. I pull down a poster I get a ticking off from the cops. I do the equivalent of that action in an online environment and suddenly I’m faced with decades in prison.

    If a higher proportion of the populace understood this shit they’d see why it was wrong – and at least there would be a fighting chance of bringing public pressure to bear on this matter. You really want to help? The read and learn and put time and effort into understanding this shit. That will do much much more than posting silly ideas about emails that you don’t understand.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Andy Downs Member

    That's fair....I admit I do not know much about how this stuff works.
    So where do I start?
  3. Escher Member

  4. Anonymous Member

    He is brain storming, there isn't anything wrong in that.
  5. Corruptionz Member

  6. Anonymous Member

    http://www.newser.com/story/172492/snowdens-biggest-victim-star-wars-cyberdefense.html
    The Internet is a series of tubes.......
  7. Anonymous Member

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/u...for-cyberdefense-unlikely.html?pagewanted=all
  8. Andy Downs Member

  9. Anonymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member

    http://cryptome.org/2013/08/nsa-fisa-audit.pdf
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Andy Downs Member

    Well with the UK today admitting the threatened the Guardian into handing over Snowden material...I think Wiki-leaks is more important that ever. Now if a paper publishes some of the material, the Feds will be standing on their doorstep waiting to cart off laptops, drives, etc if it has not been published. So dump it all in one batch...then let the chips fall where they may.....otherwise info will not be coming out anymore in the near future.
    • Like Like x 1

  12. Maybe contingency plans were already in place, and the data was spread far and wide a while ago. They can smash up as many hard drives as they like. Just another lost battle in a long series of lost battles.

    Idiots
  13. Anonymous Member

  14. Andy Downs Member

    The Guardian announced they decided to destroy the Snowden records rather than give them back. They also announced that other copies exist but they were not sure where.
    Once something cross the internet divide it never disappears. Its funny to me that one of the requests was handing the info back to the government. There is no way that could be a fool proof way of protecting the data on the governments part.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Link? Because this is totally not jiving with what I've seen them report and think you're likely misrepresenting things here.
  16. Andy Downs Member

    I heard the statement on NPR radio today...That is all I know.
  17. Andy Downs Member

  18. Anonymous Member

    "I don't think we had Snowden's consent to hand the material back, and I didn't want to help the UK authorities to know what he had given us"
    ^ This combined with the knowledge that copies existed elsewhere (knowing that the destruction was pointless) was the reasoning behind the Guardian allowing the 'pointless action'.
  19. Andy Downs Member

    • Like Like x 1
  20. Andy Downs Member

  21. Andy Downs Member

    • Like Like x 1
  22. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  23. USSID 18 allows NSA to collect on US persons for 48 hours.
  24. What do you mean by they can collect on you for 48 hours?
  25. Andy Downs Member

    The problem with how this is written is any suspicion can start the 48 hour clock, and no limit to how many specious issues can restart the 48 hour clock. So in effect they can make up anything they wish to continually collect data on a US citizen in perpetuity
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Anonymous Member

    Andy, may I say again how wonderful it is to have you here.
  27. So the 48 hour clock is BS? And if at the end of the 48 hours they dont have what they want they can find another reason to restart the 48 hour clock and keep a continuous eye on anyone?
  28. Andy Downs Member

    That is exactly what happens and why the statute was written so incompletely. There is no end to any of it because the beginning can never be defined.

    The US Congress of 1908 knew that once a secret spy force was created to monitor the people it would only get bigger, with no way of true oversight. To give you the short version, Atty Gen Bonaparte requested that congress approve a special force of detectives for the Department of Justice in 1908. Congress said no, then left for their intersession break. When Congress returned they found out that Atty Gen Bonaparte had reassigned people in the Department of Justice to have the force he wanted. In effect creating a new branch of the US government without Congressional approval or the ability of Congress to disassemble such a force.

    This is important to understand how we got not only the FBI but the NSA. Congress tried to stop the FBI from being created, but once it had the precedent had been set on how to circumvent Congress by creating a government inside of a government...that could never be stopped.
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Andy Downs Member

    It's also interesting to note that the first mission given to the Bureau was sex crimes, namely prostitution. The Bureau was ordered under the "Mann Act" (yes that was the name) to find people who had crossed state lines to get their freak on.
    The first big arrest they had was the boxer Jack Johnson. He had fallen in love with a hooker and had crossed state line to go see her and get her to marry him. So they busted him and made a big deal of it in the papers. The Mann act was not only the FBI's first mission but allowed them to gather dirty details on Congressman who liked to get the services of professionals with no strings attached.
    The FBI started tapping phones of legislators in 1909.....since the Congress could not shut the FBI down once it started, they were stuck being blackmailed from the beginning.
    The Atty Gen Bonaparte framed the debate publicly as if a Congressman was against the FBI they must be for crime.
    Sound familiar ????
    • Like Like x 1
  30. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Hmmm... I'd never heard of this before. As Spock would say... fascinating.
  31. Andy Downs Member

    The records from the 66th Congress show a lot of debate and angst on the new FBI. The Atty gen used the "Mann Act" to back politicians into a political corner so if they came out against the new FBI once it started, then they would be "soft on crime." It's interesting to read these old debates because the same type of arguments have been used over and over from the government to justify certain actions or new programs. Its almost like they get a special book of quotes for each new Congressman to repeat over time.
    The basic tactic of "if you are against "XYZ Program" then you must be for the "Bad Guys" has been used so many times its sick.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  33. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  34. Andy Downs Member

  35. JohnnyRUClear Member

    It takes an hero to be safe.
  36. dpm Member

    mr checkov enploy cloak make it so
  37. Anonymous Member

  38. Anonymous Member

  39. Andy Downs Member

    OK...during the Clinton impeachment the Dems attacked in public Special Prosecutor Ken Starr because they knew he legally could not respond to any accusations before investigation was completed.
    Is this the same play by Google and Yahoo....make a motion that will be denied, and then Google and Yahoo say they tried, but NSA said no to disclosures?
    It would be a perfect PR move, attack the process which will never respond....then play victim and tell us they are really on our side...
    Thoughts?
  40. Anonymous Member

    More or less agree, but I think they are responding in the only way they can 'I know nothing!' Those organizations are Medusa, only one head knows what's going on and the rest are shocked.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins