NSA Employees Intercept, Share Private Nude Photos

lcpiper said:
And I have been explaining over and over that the overreach has been a lie and you have been falling for it without question.
Click to expand...

Executive orders cannot create, violate, or eliminate laws and constitutional amendments. The whole discussion about what a president did is irrelevant. People should be blowing whistles about this left and right.

And really, you're telling us an organization that can keep 8 years of information on Joe Public, but can somehow lose their own agency activity data, with no backups, is trustworthy? Absolutely ridiculous.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Did he and/or the media alter the slides?

We need proof.
Click to expand...

Aardvark, I never ever claimed that the slides and other documents were fakes or modified. But as an example they showed a report with a training slide that the reporters claimed was proof that the NSA hacked Google because Google was depicted as an ISP on the Slide.

At the time I explained that as a training document the purpose is to training a technique and that Google is not used on the slide to show that they are literally hacked, but as an easily recognizable name representing an ISP that is targeted in this technique. In practice the ISP would be some foreign ISP but the Google name is used so you don't have to interrupt training when a student asks "Who is Chaing Kai Shek Tech?".

This is just an example of how these documents are easily misunderstood when shown to untrained people and out of context. It's just too easy to see impropriety where there is non when you don't know the details grounding these documents, the context they belong in, and or associate them incorrectly with other documents and programs that may be completely unrelated.
 
I'm less worried about the ones with corporations, more the ones with technology.
 
Executive orders cannot create, violate, or eliminate laws and constitutional amendments. The whole discussion about what a president did is irrelevant. People should be blowing whistles about this left and right.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. First, don't confuse the constitution with law, they are not the same.

Next, until EO12333 it was not illegal nor were there any defining court cases etc, that set limits on the NSA when it came to collecting information on US Persons. This executive order set the defining legal stance for limits and restrictions on Signals Intelligence, Who can do it, and under what conditions it can be done against a US Person. It was a very good Executive Order and it has been like a Bible Passage for the SIGINT Community since Reagan signed it in '81. Without this document there is no other law on the books that sets these limitations and protects our rights short of the Constitution itself which is not a law.

Reagan did a good thing when he signed EO 12333, the Patriot Act may have made changes to some of the effective wording of EO 12333 I have not studied this directly. But President Bush's war powers letter allowed for the bulk meta-data program in and specifically restrict EO 12333 from preventing it.

You can make all the claims you want to the contrary but unless SCOTUS rules against it then the Program will stand as legal and as it stands today, the program will remain running for the next four plus years. That's really all there is to it but of course a new President could change this as well. Or, if a citizen can show in court that they have been wronged by the NSA and specifically this program, then it can go before judges who can make rulings and it could wind up before SCOTUS sooner and force a decision. Unfortunately there is only one single known and published case that fits this description. The details are in the LOVEINT article, the one where that NSA analyst was pulling information on a foreign national and mistakenly pulled info on his brother who actually had US Person's status. She caught her own mistake and reported herself to her superiors, was retrained, removed from her current position, barred from Promotion for several years and eventually got passed it. Of course, the brother who at the time had US Person status may not have that status anymore. They didn't explain why he had this status but it could have been employment in a US Company that gave him this status, at the same time, he might have become a naturalized citizen by now, I can't say. Still, he is the only guy that the media has released info on who has a legitimate beef with proof to back it up. Everyone else has maybe, possibles, and could bees.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Wow WaltC is a Snowden Cover up Machine too.
No idiot is dumb enough to believe Snowden is lying.
Especially when you take a look at how the Government aggressively reacted following his leaks as well as all the current legal proceedings going on right now.
Snowden is an American hero.
Someone who was willing to do the right thing even if it meant leaving a great life for it.
That is selfless heroism and anyone can see that.
Click to expand...

Seriously, guy--*you* are the "Snowden Cover-Up Machine" because you keep pretending that anything Snowden has alleged about anyone to date is true. The fact is that you think it is true because you want to believe it is true. There is no shortage of Area51, black helicopter, government-conspiracy kooks in the country. They were here long before Snowden was born, and if you look at the picture rationally, you'll see that *everything* Snowden has alleged to date is the *exact same stupid bull* those conspiracy morons have been alleging for decades...;) The duplication is breath-taking.

You are exactly right, though--no idiot would think he's lying--only bright people can figure it out it seems, although it's embarrassingly easy to see through the entire charade--or at least it *ought to be*...;) Face it guy, it's a 100% hearsay, "he said, she said" moment. My goodness, Snowden has done absolutely nothing except spin the most ridiculous yarns imaginable on the basis of photochopped documents (uh, that absolutely anyone could create with a word processor, anywhere, at any time) amounting to little more than *think-tank* studies the NSA people have over the years written down--the ones that look like credible *theoretical* studies, that is. Most of Snowden's "knowledge" is the wild accusation of someone who is in deep Kimchi, and he knows it--*not* for "telling the truth like a good little boy scout," but for lying his tail off in his job, his employment applications--everything. Snowden is one of these sociologically challenged individuals who for reasons known only to himself is an inveterate liar--he's the kind of guy whose self-esteem is so low that he lies even when he has no rational motivation for doing so. Prisons are slam full of such people. To hear them tell it, they are angels sent down from on high, etc...;)

There isn't one single *thing* Snowden has alleged that he can prove that isn't already common, everyday, *known* information--not a single, solitary thing. Huge example of that is "UN Spying"!....When I was in college decades before Snowden was born my professors made jokes about how everyone in the UN was "spying on" everyone else! It was a dog-eared joke even then! Hahah...;)--that's not new information at all.

Proof of anything actually done against even a single named individual, something that is actionable in in any court in the land? Anywhere? Nope, *proof like that* doesn't exist--at least not that Snowden can produce! Duh, I wonder why?...;) Basically, Snowden is a none-too-bright kid who *only* impresses the people who already want to believe the government knows everything about everybody, from cradle to grave (what statistical nonsense that is!) For those people, Snowden merely has to allege something and he'll have no shortage of eager dummies ready to believe it.

For the rest of us, it is all too obvious that the gritty private details of 95% of the people living in the US are boring beyond belief, completely meaningless for evil government purposes, would make no sense to anyone outside of the people themselves (meaning that private information would make no sense to anyone in the government *if* they were so inclined to waste their time digging it up), and etc. There is also the little matter of the computational capacity required for such records-keeping--it doesn't exist! Even if someone in the government wanted to keep all that meaningless information that would be *worthless* to it--the sheer data-bank capacity to keep all of that information simply doesn't exist. Snowden, of course, will tell you that it does exist--but that the government has hidden it so well that not even *he* can tell you where it is kept--etc. ad infinitum. Haha...what rubbish...;)

Listen, far from being a "selfless hero," Snowden is a high-school dropout who lied to get his job (not with the NSA, but with an NSA contractor, actually, by cheating on the entrance exams because he couldn't pass them otherwise)--and *then* he broke into his boss's computer by *stealing his password*--which is not even close to being a "brilliant" piece of hacking, btw--it is just common, ordinary, everyday lying theft--Snowden's a fraud and a crook (of the Assange category only he's not as smart as Assange)--a monumental hypocrite who is making a chump out of every single person who buys into the "hero" mantra...What bunk...;)

It's very simple--because he'd always been playing way out of his league with bogus employment credentials (and that's all we know about that was bogus that Snowden did when employed), for Edward Snowden, it was always a matter of time before the axe would fall--he'd be found out and he'd be looking at some prison time because he *knew* that lying to get the government to hire him is a crime, it's *no misdemeanor.* Everyone who applies for a Federal government position is informed of that fact in writing at the time--often, over and over again. If you think of nothing else at all about Snowden--think of his lying to get his job--just think about that--and his stealing his boss's password to break into his boss's machine. Had it been a private company Snowden would probably already be in jail...Snowden knew his time was about up...and so he made his decisions and ran. This was no honest "whistleblower" who had the courage of his convictions--this was a garden-variety con man & thief who hadn't even obtained his job in an honest & forthright manner! For him, "whistleblowing" wasn't option--"taking 'the money and running' was the only option left to him. And that's what he did--just like any thief and robber will naturally do when faced with the consequences of his crimes.

Why isn't he in jail? Because right now the Russian government, specifically Putin, has decided to support him and milk him for whatever anti-US propaganda value it can. For as long as it can or as long as it *wants to.* Putin has mentioned Snowden by name several times already--so his value is assessed from the very top of the Russian government. If I was Snowden that would worry me greatly. When I say that I feel sorry for Snowden because he's "snowed" himself, mostly, I'm sincere. He's obviously gotten in way over his head and has no real understanding of the game he is trying to play. It is more than specious writing in the Russian press when we read that "Snowden is under death threats"---that worries me because I think it is a signal from the Russian government (*high* in that government) that it considers Snowden entirely expendable--and it may even be an indirect message to Snowden to "**it or get off the pot," so to speak.

And, gosh, how the NSA must *laugh* at Snowden privately. How could it not? Snowden spins these yarns that make the NSA look 100 feet tall in terms of what Snowden tells the world the NSA can do and is doing (none of which is true, but the NSA isn't going to disparage the kind of "Superman" image Snowden has spun about it. Why should the NSA disparage it?--it plays right into their hands!) It isn't the NSA that will do Snowden in if anyone ever does--if anything, no telling what will happen to the guy when Putin & pals get tired of supporting him, and should they feel he'd be more valuable to them *dead* so that they could assign the blame for his demise to the NSA--and create a phony incident over it. If I was Snowden, I'd be very nervous when I'd see those articles in the Russian press appear as they've been doing lately. I mean, unlike it was for him in the US, it's not exactly as if he can just up and leave Mother Russia whenever he feels like it, is it? Putin pretty much owns Snowden at this point, lock, stock, and barrel.
 
lcpiper said:
And I do have a question for you guys, just so we are on the right track.

Snowden was an IT guy, support, not Intel, so when, where, and how, was it that he was routinely involved in this;
A_24_hour_watch_center_at_the_Defense_Intelligence_Agency_(DIA).jpg


When his job, clearance, and access was for this;
facebook-sweden-data-center-640x426.jpg


I am just asking.

I mean he wasn't read on and cleared for these programs so how in hell was he in the restricted areas where these programs were run?

I'm just asking :D
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. He was IT. The nature of IT work usually requires that they have a high level of access to either people with high access (desktop) or large areas where their admin rights follow. If you don't think IT people snoop data when they're bored, you're mistaken.
 
WaltC said:
...
Click to expand...

A post that long needs reference sources. You speak as if you have inside knowledge. Nothing Snowden has leaked to date has been so far fetched that it is outside the realm of possibility.

A lot of the leaks have been corroborated or not denied. Why would they charge him with stealing government secrets if what he said was not based around truth? They could have easily said "these leaks are fake" and proved photoshopping.
 
Draxanoth said:
Executive orders cannot create, violate, or eliminate laws and constitutional amendments. The whole discussion about what a president did is irrelevant. People should be blowing whistles about this left and right.

And really, you're telling us an organization that can keep 8 years of information on Joe Public, but can somehow lose their own agency activity data, with no backups, is trustworthy? Absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

/Nothing but net.
 
Waiting to see these leaked nude photos - and I'll need a ton of this proof before I believe Snowden
 
if they were behind (...) the Scarlet Jo pic, I may have to change my stance on the NSA

/s
 
Spidey329 said:
You answered your own question....If you don't think IT people snoop data when they're bored, you're mistaken.
Click to expand...

I face palmed when I saw the post you replied to. Like if a tv feed is more useful than a server with Petabytes of movie and picture files.

aye aye aye


and yes, IT look under the sheets when bored.
 
Overreach is not defined by those doing the overreaching. Rather it is defined by those to whom the overreaching is being done to.

If I am allowed to set the rules for myself in relation to my actions towards others we no longer live in a civilized society.

I could care less what the NSA/CIA/DIA/DARPA/FBI/ATF/other alphabet soup agencies believes are guidelines they set up for themselves. The fact is if they are spying on me when given no legitimate reason to then they are overreaching.

Asking them if they are following the rules is like asking a child if they are supposed to eat ice cream for breakfast.
 
lcpiper said:
You are incorrect. First, don't confuse the constitution with law, they are not the same.

Next, until EO12333 it was not illegal nor were there any defining court cases etc, that set limits on the NSA when it came to collecting information on US Persons. This executive order set the defining legal stance for limits and restrictions on Signals Intelligence, Who can do it, and under what conditions it can be done against a US Person. It was a very good Executive Order and it has been like a Bible Passage for the SIGINT Community since Reagan signed it in '81. Without this document there is no other law on the books that sets these limitations and protects our rights short of the Constitution itself which is not a law.

Reagan did a good thing when he signed EO 12333, the Patriot Act may have made changes to some of the effective wording of EO 12333 I have not studied this directly. But President Bush's war powers letter allowed for the bulk meta-data program in and specifically restrict EO 12333 from preventing it.

You can make all the claims you want to the contrary but unless SCOTUS rules against it then the Program will stand as legal and as it stands today, the program will remain running for the next four plus years. That's really all there is to it but of course a new President could change this as well. Or, if a citizen can show in court that they have been wronged by the NSA and specifically this program, then it can go before judges who can make rulings and it could wind up before SCOTUS sooner and force a decision. Unfortunately there is only one single known and published case that fits this description. The details are in the LOVEINT article, the one where that NSA analyst was pulling information on a foreign national and mistakenly pulled info on his brother who actually had US Person's status. She caught her own mistake and reported herself to her superiors, was retrained, removed from her current position, barred from Promotion for several years and eventually got passed it. Of course, the brother who at the time had US Person status may not have that status anymore. They didn't explain why he had this status but it could have been employment in a US Company that gave him this status, at the same time, he might have become a naturalized citizen by now, I can't say. Still, he is the only guy that the media has released info on who has a legitimate beef with proof to back it up. Everyone else has maybe, possibles, and could bees.
Click to expand...

Your view is completely slanted. You are basically saying "I think looking in my neighbors window is good for me. So my neighbors right to privacy is irrelevant." The methods are different by the principal is the same.

Once again your opinion on the interpretation of the law is completely irrelevant when the majority of the governed does not hold the same view as you do.

The constitution is very clear about where the government derives its power. From the governed. Not the other way around.
 
lcpiper,

Also no, a citizen that has been wronged by the NSA or any other government org can not take them to court unless the program they were wronged by is 1) completed and or not active 2) not classified 3) not covered by idiots in the government shouting "NATIONAL SECURITY!" every time someone questions them. If it is covered by any of those things it will never see the light of day in court. Courts provide legal precedent along with monetary settlements. Turns out the money is always the less important of the two outcomes.
 
TwiceOver said:
So does he have the documents to back this up? While I don't doubt such things probably happen, I just find it odd that he chooses now to pump up his cause again and get the "American People" stirred up about something.

Sigh, I like this guy less and less every story I read. He's really kinda a putz.
Click to expand...

Why assume it's his fault or choice to "now pump up his cause"? Are you so naive as to believe that the media is merely a disinterested conduit of truth, justice and the American Way?

For all you or I know, he's had everything out on the table from the beginning and the media report only what they want to report.
 
mrpc9886 said:
For all you or I know, he's had everything out on the table from the beginning and the media report only what they want to report.
Click to expand...

This, it has been confirmed from Snowden as well as many people who work for the papers he first gave his information copies to that he gave them everything at once. The media is dragging this out in order to try and inflate ratings, thus advertising money, for as long as possible.

Any media company that takes advertising money is not real news. They will actively keep quiet on stories that paint major advertisers in negative light. Not only will they suppress these stories, they will even tell people that the people bringing them to light are "crazy" and therefore should be ignored.

Media news =/= news
Media news = premade advertising segments.
 
The main problem with this interview, and article, is the lack of pictures. If they want me to take them seriously, they've gotta show some proof!
 
lcpiper said:
And I do have a question for you guys, just so we are on the right track.

Snowden was an IT guy, support, not Intel, so when, where, and how, was it that he was routinely involved in this;
A_24_hour_watch_center_at_the_Defense_Intelligence_Agency_(DIA).jpg


When his job, clearance, and access was for this;
facebook-sweden-data-center-640x426.jpg


I am just asking.

I mean he wasn't read on and cleared for these programs so how in hell was he in the restricted areas where these programs were run?

I'm just asking :D
Click to expand...


Because all the data used for the first image is stored/accessed from the servers you show in the second... So if access to the second is all you need to get the info he had...
 
J3RK said:
Give them free porn, and they will share it with their co-workers. :D
Click to expand...
Sounds like a way for Russian hackers in infiltrate us government systems.
Didn't that russian spy girl hide information on photos metadata or something.
 
lcpiper said:
And I have been explaining over and over that the overreach has been a lie and you have been falling for it without question.
Click to expand...

Stalin was a good guy, he told me so himself!

Bottom line is that the "liars" are coming forth with documents and proof. What's the NSA's evidence they are sharing to clear their name? Oh yeah, nothing. If a whistle blower showed me a set of books that had clear evidence of shady financial transactions, and the corporate accountant retorted with a reply of, "no way, lies!", while providing no disputing evidence, take a guess who I'd believe.

lcpiper said:
....Bush authorized the bulk meta-data programs with a War Powers Letter. The man quit because he believed the program was illegal, he went whistleblower and stired up a shitstorm because he didn't know about the letter. Hi boss tried to warn him to shut up, that he was wrong but he wouldn't listen and never even considered that a President signed EO12333 that would make the program illegal but that another President had made this program a legal activity and Binney wasn't told because he wasn't cleared for the program so didn't know about the letter....
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I don't give a shit who wrote "a letter" that violates my and my fellow citizen's rights. Fuck Bush, fuck Obama, and fuck everyone else involved in the wholesale breach of our rights. As far as I'm concerned they should all be dragged out in the street, executed, their names entered into our history books as traitors, and their corpses toted around town for people to spit on.

Anyone that is complicit in warrantless spying of our fellow citizens is far worse than a terrorist. When you've taken an oath to protect our rights and then turn around to infringe on them, you are a traitor. That's far worse than any external enemy.
 
Not to worry. There are three separate branches to avoid impropriety.

The government said the government can do whatever the government wants
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top