Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NSA officers spy on love interests  (Read 2680 times)
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251


« on: August 25, 2013, 07:06:20 AM »
ReplyReply

National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

NSA officers sometimes spy on love interests

So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3676


« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2013, 08:57:42 AM »
ReplyReply

So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?

They know too much dirty secrets about those members of Congress, Wink

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251


« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2013, 01:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

They know too much dirty secrets about those members of Congress, Wink

You know I'm really starting to wonder if that's the truth - just as many people had conspiracy theories about the NSA spying on Internet stuff (that have turned out to be true), so too do they exist about this too...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8080



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2013, 07:14:52 PM »
ReplyReply

When the law is seen as an obstacle by some people in terms of realizing the sacred mission they are trying to accomplish (in this case officially protect a country, but this may as well be provide jobs to defense contractors), I don't see what would prevent these same people from leveraging the means they have to "help" some politicians see the world the way they think it must be seen.

Heck, isn't it something they owe their children? Why would the rules voted by a bunch of weak civilians have to prevent them from doing everything they can to be good parents?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 07:18:26 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2013, 07:57:37 PM »
ReplyReply

National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

NSA officers sometimes spy on love interests

So at what point does the NSA get a proper grilling from Congress and someone made accountable for all of these transgressions?

Reportedly, there were few such transgressions and they were punished, including with dismissal. If that is not true, and there were instead many such instances, often with inadequate punishment, it might be worth Congress getting involved, but I get the sense that every little NSA story is getting blown out of proportion ... at the potential cost of taking attention away from issues that really do deserve high level action.

One proposal would be not having all the search authorizations done by a FIS court where every current judge was appointed by a single person (Chief Justice Roberts) leading to them all being solid "national security" conservative Republicans. I. e., lapdogs to the NSA.  How about some congressional advice and consent on the appointment of these judges?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2013, 09:06:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Reportedly, there were few such transgressions and they were punished, including with dismissal.

dear, not "were" but "were reported so far" (question is - why that was not reported before at all)... because next time it will (unless it happened, but was not reported) be not "loveint", but something else ("watergateint")

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5947


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2013, 10:15:02 AM »
ReplyReply

... every little NSA story is getting blown out of proportion ...

Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2013, 02:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

All I can offer is this thought: wouldn't it be nice for me if I had a love interest for anyone to investigate!

Smoke, mirrors, smoke without fires even, but nope, no friggin' love interest to be found. Not for the first time recently, I despair. Maybe I should get a green card; do they give them to pensioners? I've seen lots of pictures of old Americans with lovely young things on their arm; a certain Mr Hef sets a great example - so nice to think that if I move to the States I shall have one too. Perhaps that's why green cards aren't easy to get unless you are a terrorist: lovely young things would become scarce with all these new/old foreigners coming in?

It all makes having and running another 500 Hassy seem like a piece of cake.

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5947


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2013, 02:03:15 PM »
ReplyReply

... wouldn't it be nice for me if I had a love interest...

We love you Rob!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »
ReplyReply

We love you Rob!

Is that a promise? Is that a declaration of intent? Must I buy another, collective set of rings?

Oy vey - life she is hard!

Rob C
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1251


« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2013, 08:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.

Exactly.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2013, 07:50:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of us concerned with the blanket population surveillance are so not because of the anecdotal evidence so far indicating misuse, but because of the POTENTIAL for future misuse and abuse of such a powerful weapon in the hands of many, but controlled by few. In the everyday, criminal domain, it is the potential for (police) abuse that is giving judges and lawyers their reason for existence, otherwise we could just rely on the police to arrest and send to jail.
Agreed: it is inevitable that a major nation will be the _capability_ to do horrible things (e.g. use of chemical or nuclear weapons, or even just providing lots of conventional weapons to dubious governments or "freedom fighters"), so my more realistic goals are (a) strict procedures for authorization and (b) far more thorough oversight and checking that those procedures are being respected, with both done by more than a hand-picked group of "national security uber alles" people.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3676


« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2013, 03:35:54 AM »
ReplyReply

[...]so my more realistic goals are (a) strict procedures for authorization and (b) far more thorough oversight and checking that those procedures are being respected, with both done by more than a hand-picked group of "national security uber alles" people.

Hi,

But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2013, 04:09:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...

Cheers,
Bart



You want essential data or just 'legally acquired' data? They can't always be the same.

I'd opt for the essential. I'd even dare to suggest that illegally acquired data that could have prevented 9/11 would have found few people amongst the victims putting forward any defence for only strictly legal methods of getting that data.

I don't think that too difficult a proposition for anyone to grasp, other than, of course, for the pedants with an obsession about the legality of such information. You know, the literalists amongst us.

Rob C
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3676


« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2013, 08:56:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd even dare to suggest that illegally acquired data that could have prevented 9/11 [...]

I sincerely hope you are not trying to suggest that illegally acquired data is better than legally acquired data. And for the record, it was not the lack of data that made 911 transpire as it did, part of it was the organization of the data.

So let's stop and suggest that more data is better. Only better data is better, and it should be legally acquired, supervised and prevented from being inappropriately used (thus meaning destroyed) when not immediately (in a reasonable period) necessary.

The fallacy that data-mining will reveal meaningful patterns is not a general given. What is a given is that the more data one collects, the harder it is to find really meaningful connections, and the sooner errors will creep in that lead to the wrong conclusions and will cause damage, and the harder it is to keep from falling into the wrong hands.

It's not about the quantity, but about the quality. As it usually is with everything else.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2013, 09:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Bart, that's selective editing at its worst - or best!

I didn't claim that such data existed, just that had it existed, from whatever source, if its use had prevented the outrage, there would be no complaints about sourcing other than from fellow terrorists and their friends: this ain't no game on a pitch or around a table; rules of play in these matters of mass killings are bullshit.

Neither am I saying what you feared: it doesn't matter where the data comes from, just as long as it's reliable and arrives in time. That it may or may not be used to best advantage is, in this context, immaterial, because that applies to all data, however sourced.

I agree about quality; but what makes you imagine that 'legally' acquired intelligence is the only one that is of quality? I certainly don't put much faith in the product of torture because I, for one, would admit almost to anything I have not done at first sight of rubber gloves and a set of pliers. Introduce a saw and I'm out cold, incapable of admitting anything. You see the problems with torture?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3676


« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2013, 10:14:42 AM »
ReplyReply

[...]rules of play in these matters of mass killings are bullshit.[...]

While sadly true, it's also what promotes the next wave. Think Guantanamo, think illegal rendition (handing over prisoners to countries where torture is allowed), think religious discrimination, etc., etc.

Quote
Neither am I saying what you feared: it doesn't matter where the data comes from, just as long as it's reliable and arrives in time.


Which is purely a judgment at given moment, and by a given prejudiced entity. Without checks and balances it means nothing, think WMDs.

Quote
That it may or may not be used to best advantage is, in this context, immaterial, because that applies to all data, however sourced.

But this is exactly one of the main issues with unstructured data-mining. Very material!

Quote
I agree about quality; but what makes you imagine that 'legally' acquired intelligence is the only one that is of quality?

I don't. But at least there are checks and balances which, if applied correctly (and there is an issue with that), might filter out some errors.

Quote
You see the problems with torture?

Well, torture is illegal. Nuf said.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 10:57:52 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5140


« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2013, 10:56:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

But that assumes that the data was legally collected in the first place ...

Cheers,
Bart
My item (b) is intended to address the problem of illegal collection by the improved and less lap-doggy oversight, to better deter, detect, and delete inappropriate data collection. Of course there will be a significant amount of unauthorized collecting if there is inadequate oversight and the collectors have the typical self-rightious attitude that they are doing an important job that mere politicians are not competent to meddle in.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2013, 02:11:26 AM »
ReplyReply

What happens to an organization such as the FBI or CIA or NSA when any dirty secrets about their boss (or the politicians who decide their budgets) can be leaked to the press at any time those with the knowledge see fit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
 
What happens to the political leadership of a nation if politicians must be selected among a small population of people who have never said anything silly on a phone, never did anything silly while drunk and who did not subscribe to some non-mainstream political view at 20?

What happens to a nation when people stop accepting that hazards in life are very real, no matter what intrusive rights we grant our leaders to "protect" us?

Why is it that peoples value the right to own a bathtub so dearly (even though plenty of people slip and die in one), while the right to talk and think without the state spying on you is worth little compared to the faint possibility that giving up on it might reduce your chance of being killed by terrorist from 20 million to 1 to some smaller ratio?


-h
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2013, 04:03:36 AM »
ReplyReply


Why is it that peoples value the right to own a bathtub so dearly (even though plenty of people slip and die in one), while the right to talk and think without the state spying on you is worth little compared to the faint possibility that giving up on it might reduce your chance of being killed by terrorist from 20 million to 1 to some smaller ratio?

-h


For starters, it might be nice being able to fly without getting an unwanted scan or having to take your shoes off in public. You can get to hate people wearing trainers. You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient. The implication that terrorism only counts if it kills you is naïve and simplistic.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad