Greenwald makes another Snowden dump. This time Brazil papers. US spied on millions of e-mails calls

[Catherina]

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

This just out in the Brazilian papers. Translation mine.

U.S. spying on millions of e-mails and calls of Brazilians

RIO - In the last decade, people residing or in transiting in Brazil, as well as companies operating in the country, have become targets of espionage by the National Security Agency of the United States (NSA). There are no precise figures, but last January Brazil was just behind the United States, which had 2.3 billion phone calls and messages spied upon.

...

The NSA documents are eloquent. Brazil, with its extensive public and private networks operated by large telecommunications companies and internet, is highlighted on maps of the U.S. agency with focus primarily on voice traffic and data (origin and destination), was monitored along with nations such as China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. It is uncertain how many people and companies were monitored in Brazil. But there is evidence that the volume of data captured by the filtering system in the local telephone networks and the Internet is constant and on large scale.

... (Explains Prism, the NSA, NSA budget, employees, how this has "rocked the credibility of the Barack Obama government" which continued the Bush surveillance programs and increased the NSA's budget)....

However, this program (Prism) does not allow the NSA access to the entire universe of communications. Large volumes of traffic calls and internet data occur outside the scope of the NSA and its partners for the use of Prism. To extend their reach, and build the global espionage system they want, the agency has developed other programs with corporate partners who provide them with access to international communications.

One is Fairview, which enabled the collection of data in communications networks worldwide. It is used by the NSA, according to the description in the document to which OGLOBO had access, in partnership with a major U.S. phone company. The US company, in turn, maintains business relationships with other telecommunications services in Brazil and worldwide. As a result of its relations with non-US companies, the U.S. operator has access to the local communications networks, including Brazilian.

Ie, through this corporate alliance, the NSA has access to communication systems outside of US borders. The paper describes the system as follows: "The partners operate in the U.S., and do not have access to information passing in networks of the other nation, but through corporate relationships, are provided exclusive access to the other (telecommunications companies and internet service providers)." Telecommunications companies in Brazil have this partnership that gives access to the American company. What is not clear is if the American company has been used by the NSA as a sort of "bridge". It is also unclear whether the Brazilian companies are aware of how their partnership with the U.S. company is being used.

...

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/eua-espionaram-milhoes-de-mails-ligacoes-de-brasileiros-8940934

Also in the article

- "this access allows them to collect detailed records of telephone calls and emails of millions of (Brazilian) people, businesses and institutions."

- explains the FISA court warrant/national security letter sham and the Verizon case

- explains how US citizens have a figleaf of protection but "monitoring people, companies and foreign institutions is NSA's mission, as defined in Presidential Order (number 12333) for three decades"

- a person or company "of interest" residing in Brazil can have all their calls and electronic mail - sent or received - under constant surveillance.

- The agency holds all sorts of records (dialed number, trunk and extension used, duration, date, time, location, address of sender and recipient, as well as IP addresses - as well as websites visited). And does the same with whoever is on the other end of the line, or another computer screen.

- monitoring the progressive relationship network of each telephone caller or recipient of electronic mail (e-mail, fax, SMS, videos, podcasts, etc..)

- All kinds of information stored

[hr]

[randome]

1. Explains "Obama's involvement"? Where does that knowledge-based conclusion come from?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[randome]

11. Anyone? Is this thing on?

On edit: Ah. The Obama slam disappeared. Don't show your true colors too soon now.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

103. Tune in to BTB--the "Blame the Brother" channel....

That's what they all seem to be watching up in here.

[randome]

116. Is that an actual thing?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

127. It might as well be!

Sure seems like it around these parts, at times...

[pscot]

125. That's a cheap shot

Right now, the brother is the guy in charge. And you have to admit, they could have handled the whole Snowden business a little better. It's a clusterfuck.

[MADem]

126. I call 'em as I see 'em.

I love the way he's convicted in advance, by keyboard kommandos, without evidence, just assertions...yet the guy who admits he took a job just so he could STEAL shit gets an unquestioning pass and is deified, without question, without anyone wondering if he's getting a payday from some other entity.

I sometimes wonder if Snowden wasn't a white guy, if he'd get the same degree of adulation from some corners? And I feel bad when I think "No, he wouldn't."

But I don't feel bad because I think I'm wrong--I feel bad because I think I am right.

[mattclearing]

130. Stealing from thieves is a moral grey area.

It wasn't the NSA's info to begin with.

Personally, I think Obama has tried to be hawkish across the board to avoid being out-hawked by Republicans and he has effectively countered the narrative that Dems are weak on Defense.

That's a double-edged sword, unfortunately, because he has also willingly supported Bush programs that are unbecoming a transparency-minded Democrat.

I'm reluctant to pass judgment on Snowden or Obama in this case...it's still a bit early to tell.

Snowden seems to have taken more care in his release of documents than Manning did, and I won't condemn him for weaseling his way into a position where he could make the most impact.

I don't like that he's a libertarian Paul supporter, but then Obama is fairly embarrassing on Wall Street and other issues.

No tears for the eavesdroppers.

[MADem]

136. And which court has ruled that it wasn't their info?

See? He's convicted ahead of a trial--and Snowden is exonerated before one, too.

It's not even subtle, even when it's not intentional.

[mattclearing]

138. What are you talking about?

Convicted of what? Nothing you've said here addresses my post.

[MADem]

139. Maybe you want to go back and get the full sense of the thread. nt

[mattclearing]

148. I was speaking generally.

Do you have a point?

[MADem]

149. Well...I was responding to your explicit assertion that the information did not belong to NSA.

I asked what court decided that, and you got aggressive and shirty with me.

My question (What court decided that?) was my point.

Further, it would appear that a court has in fact decided that NSA was acting legally.

You might not like that, you might not like the nature of the judicial body, but that's how it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?hpw&_r=0

I've no doubt that some entity will challenge the rulings of this court at the Supreme Court level, probably sooner rather than later, to determine the constitutionality of their endeavors, but to infer that the NSA was acting in an extra-judicial manner is just not accurate.

So....there's yet another point for you.

[mattclearing]

150. I didn't accept your premise.

Sorry if I seemed shirty. It seemed like you thought a court's decision on the legality of blanket surveillance was somehow justifiable or relevant. If you think the laws on the books (or off) and secret or public court proceedings are appropriate to decide whether a phone call or electronic communication between people not accused of a crime remains private, we probably don't have much common ground.

[MADem]

151. I am not a member of the Supreme Court.

I also don't know how "blanket" this surveillance actually was. All we have is a runner's say-so, a couple of power point slides, a FISA warrant that does not say what he says it says, and his assertions.

I could give Glenn Greenwald an interview and authoritatively state that I was an astronaut....but I'd imagine he'd want more proof than he apparently demanded of Snowden. He didn't understand the material he was publishing, he didn't even understand the meaning or definition of "metadata" and yet he plowed on. Intelligence is not gathered in a vacuum, I do know that much. Greenwald would have people believe that some schmuck was listening in on all your calls to Granny, and that's just not true.

There's more to learn here, certainly--I just am not impressed with the way Snowden chose to approach this, AND I am wondering if a third nation actor is involved as well (not counting the asylum offerers, mind you). I don't think we're seeing the full picture here--and I don't mean the material that Snowden stole (which likely the Chinese and Russians have already seen).

I also don't find it helpful that Obama, quite personally and with invective, is being accused on a Democratic message board of acting in an extra-judicial fashion, when that has not been demonstrated by ANY court ruling to this point in time.

Someone, surely, will petition the Supremes for a ruling on all of the law surrounding FISA -- they will probably do it in chunks. We'll have to wait and see if they take the case, and if they do, what they have to say about it. Until then, to say "This law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is just an assertion, not a fact--and it's made even more complicated by the "fact" that the FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supremes decide what is constitutional and what's not--not me or anyone else. That is how our system works. If people don't like their ruling, that's the time to go for an amendment.

[mattclearing]

152. I never said the law was unconstitutional.

I expressed my own skepticism about Snowden's actions, as well as everyone else's. I'm waiting this out for the most part, but I don't necessarily agree that the Supreme Court that put George W.Bush in the White House and allows racist states to enact racist voting policies is somehow the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Those decisions skew the system toward injustice and ensure that amendments which run counter to the bias being favored can't pass. You say that's how our system works; I am less convinced that it works.

[MADem]

158. Well, the courts are going to decide and that decision will stick

until/unless the constitution is amended.

We will have to live with it for a time anyway, if it is deemed constitutional. The right v. wrong argument will come afterwards, if need be.

We've done a sensible amendment or two; votes for women, ending prohibition....of course, we failed to amend to include the ERA, when we should have and could have, with just a bit more effort.

It does take involvement, organization, and a certain amount of passion.

[sabrina 1]

156. Don't ask, I have read the thread and have no idea what s/he is talking about either, but

I rarely do.

Manning was careful about what he released. He had the clearance to have released some top secret material but did not do so. What he released was not damaging, according to Gates but it did reveal war crimes, and those crimes should be revealed and should be prosecuted.

It's interesting that none of the material released by all the Whistle Blowers has never been investigated. And at least two of them, Drake and Binney went through all the channels within the Government required for Whistle Blowers to report the wrong doing they saw. Only AFTER taking all those steps and seeing that nothing was going to be done about it, did they go to the media.

[mattclearing]

157. True.

I get the impression that Snowden was more careful than Manning in that his revelations, so far, aren't likely to cause a dizzying array of international incidents, which Manning's did. I believe both have been handled poorly. There's no accountability for the government, which is only interested in shooting the messenger.

[Enthusiast]

161. Nice thoughtful post.

I think your take on Obama represents a best possible scenario. But that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

I can't get over the Wall Street thing. No way. Nor the education thing. The war on whistle blowers. Or appointing Republicans and righties for all sorts of critical sensitive positions. I have grown to be extremely suspicious of the President.

[mattclearing]

174. Thanks.

Obama has disappointed on many fronts. To a certain extent, I think the amount you can get done as President depends on the extent to which you accept the office as it comes. Obama has taken this to an extreme, and accepted the office in fairly unacceptable condition. It sounds like where Bush didn't really care about legality or propriety in some of these programs, Obama just let people give them the CYA once-over, on everything from spying to torture to Wall Street.

Still, a presidency where Obama simply tried to undo all of Bush's work wouldn't have accomplished much, especially considering the treatment he's received from Congress. I like to think he'd have done better with hard bargaining and better social skills, but I think there are limits to what a President can accomplish.

The 1% are going to get their way, with or without the President. Getting through two terms alive is a pretty big accomplishment for Obama. I am reluctant to condemn him, no matter how bad his policies are, because of this. I also try to remember the many, many good things he has been able to do, both with and without Congressional help.

[pscot]

132. You don't think there'd be some role reversal

if Snowden were black? But the attacks would be 10 times as vicious, because of the race component. Liberals aren't immune to that disease, though we like to pretend we are. I think you have to try to keep the various elements of this Snowden business separate. There are a lot of moving parts. No one element is responsible for the whole. This system has been developing over 50 years. The big question for a lot of us, indeed the only question that matters; is where national security ends and the Fourth Amendment takes over. We seem to have got way past that point, and that needs to be changed. It would be nice if the President felt that way too.

[MADem]

134. That's essentially what I said.

I sometimes wonder if Snowden wasn't a white guy, if he'd get the same degree of adulation from some corners? And I feel bad when I think "No, he wouldn't."


In short, he'd be excoriated. Pilloried. Drawn and quartered.

That said, no one's waiting for any "legal judgment" before POTUS is convicted in the Court of Some Folk's Opinions. And they aren't asking any "big questions" either--it's all about "Let the wheel of justice spin, bring the guilty bastard in."

I notice. I'm not the only one who notices, either.

[RC]

22. Obama is the Head of State of the United States of America

And as such, he should be in the loop somewhere as to what is going on with the NSA.
If he is not, why not? That would make the NSA a rogue agency. In that case, why isn't Obama taking steps to rein it in?

[randome]

42. Perhaps because the NSA is adhering to the law and restrictions?

I will continue to ask for evidence that the NSA is 'rogue'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[RC]

50. And I will continue to to maintain they are in violation of the 4th, among other Amendments

of the US Constitution.
Complicity in allowing the NSA to do what they are doing, is also in violation of the Constitution. NSA is still a rogue agency, legal or otherwise, by the very nature of what they are doing. It doesn't matter whether the Administration, the Congress or the Supreme Court approves or not. Approval makes them complicit in the unconstitutional law breaking.
To make what the NSA is doing actually legal, the Constitution would need to be changed.

[silvershadow]

66. +1

[MADem]

143. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on issues of constitutionality.

Not you.

That might not be to your liking, but that's how it works.

That's what their JOB is, that is why they exist.

The members of the FISA court are appointed by the Chief Justice.

[RC]

146. And you don't see a problem with the FISA court being appointed by Roberts?

The Supreme Court still has to follow the Constitution. Even they do not have the power to declare parts of the Constitution null and void, as the 4th Amendment seems to have been.

What has happened to the Democratic Underground that was started when bu$h was appointed? This site can't be it.

[Progressive dog]

167. That does not make anything illegal

Even they do not have the power to declare parts of the Constitution null and void, as the 4th Amendment seems to have been.

The SCOTUS gets to decide what the Constitution means, you don't, and because you disagree with them doesn't mean they are declaring the Constitution null and void.
I can't find anything in the Constitution telling how the FISA court is appointed.

[RC]

168. Just because it is "legal", you approve?

How conservative thinking of you.
It is A-OK with you for the government to collect all your electronic communications and web surfing, with the possibility of having some unknown private contractor go through it because they can? For some reason, I have a problem with that.
Just because it is legal, does not make it necessarily good, or even Constitutional, even if the Supreme Court says it is. That is conservative thinking, not Progressive.

[Progressive dog]

169. No I do not approve of what Snowden, Greenwald

and their apologists are doing.
I object to the language that they use, I object to their support for authoritarian governments, I object to their inflation of the exaggerations of Snowden into a vast Federal conspiracy.
I object to those who think that it is "progressive" to try to bring down our system of constitutional government.

[RC]

170. I was talking about our government.

Way to miss the point there. We don't have to do anything to bring down our system of constitutional government, our own government is doing a fine job of that itself. That is what I have a problem with and of the people supporting that.

[Progressive dog]

171. I wasn't talking about our government, I was

talking about the nuts who think that 200+ years of a constitutional government, a government that has expanded civil rights over that period, is going to be brought down because of meta-data rules and a FISA court.
It is laughable. If these nuts really wanted the spying programs to change, they would stop taking the word of a man who fled to avoid prosecution and actually start a discussion about the limits that should be put on the NSA program.

[RC]

172. I'll stop wasting my time here.

You've exposed your self enough to remove all doubt that you support the coming totalitarianism.

[Progressive dog]

173. Coming totalitarianism

I assume fascist totalitarianism using torture trains and air piracy as methods of government.

[JDPriestly]

67. They are a rogue agency because they are operating outside the Constitution.

In his memoir, "In Search of History," Theodore White wrote: "Contacts are the only bankable capital on which a journalist an ever draw." (White, pp. 241-242, Warner Books, 1978)

When the government deprives journalists of privacy in their contacts by collecting the metadata on their electronic communications, it deprives EVERYONE, including you and me and all DUers if a FREE PRESS and thereby violates our constitutional guarantee of a free press.

I hope that is simple enough for people to understand.

[randome]

72. It is simple enough. But the courts interpret the Constitution.

They have routinely ruled in favor of business metadata collection where needed.

So I don't see how you can say the NSA is operating outside the Constitution. I can understand -although disagree with- the idea that the rules on collecting business records need to be changed.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JDPriestly]

78. The courts have not yet decided a case involving this massive collection of metadata.

It could take years but I think there will be a change.

The effect of these programs on our freedom of press is enough to eventually (not soon) cause the Supreme Court to close them down.

[randome]

81. And if it is changed, I'm good with it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

131. Sorry. I should have read the rest of the posts. Please disregard

It would have answered my question.

Again my apologies for this.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. I must say, that IS good timing!

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Morales is gonna really think about Act 2 of his reaction to La Affaire Snowden.
esp this:
monitoring the progressive relationship network of each telephone caller or recipient of electronic mail

UPDATE:Edward Snowden offered asylum in Bolivia by President Evo Morales
Bolivian President Evo Morales says Snowden is welcome in his country. He said Saturday he is making the offer as a protest against the U.S. and European nations he accuses of temporarily blocking his flight home from a Moscow summit because they suspected he might have Snowden on board.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592523/edward-snowden-offered-asylum-in-bolivia-by-president-evo-morales/

[Autumn]

3. I don't get this. Collecting data on that many countries and

that many people. All this can't be just looking for terrorists, they aren't going to be using podcasts and faxes and texts and e mail.

rec

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. They are looking for resistance to the neo liberal order

Of course those *are* terrorists from DCs POV.

[truth2power]

166. Correct, Nadin... This can't possibly be about terrorism. My pick is, as you've said, "resistance to

the neo liberal order".

The government cares not one whit about whether we are 'safe'.

[randome]

7. NSA does a lot more than look for terrorists.

Human trafficking, international child pornography, organized crime.

Still doesn't explain why they are monitoring all this data but they are authorized to do that for foreign countries.

And if this is like Greenwald's previous documents, it's likely there is little that is definitive about it. Haven't looked yet so maybe this time is different.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Autumn]

12. I wonder if there have been any success stories on catching

criminals who have been caught doing human trafficking, international child pornography, and organized crime by using this data collection and punished in court.

[flamingdem]

13. You wont' bother to look because in your narrative the USA is only evil

I challenge you to use the google on this

[Autumn]

18. Well that's your opinion. Try reading. I never said

the USA is evil. Now the NSA on the other hand..... Yeah I think that could very well be used for evil, especially with a fucking republican in charge.

[randome]

21. Bush had the same tools at his command. Including the metadata.

He was caught abusing his wiretap authorities and was called on it. The system can always be improved.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[randome]

15. That's one of the things we should get regular reports about.

Not only to trumpet success on its own merit but to justify the huge expenditures going into the NSA.

More transparency, less secrecy. I think we all agree on that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Autumn]

19. I agree with you on that.

If they can show what it's being used for and the justification for it, that might would be different kettle of fish.

[Enthusiast]

162. And Wall Street fraudsters®..................nt

[The Straight Story]

9. To give inside info to their corporate masters

[RedCappedBandit]

26. Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you're right.... nt

[Autumn]

140. I tend to think you are right.

I imagine a lot of money could be made and a lot of people influenced, one way or the other.

[Catherina]

10. What Nadin and StraightStory said + industrial espionage, intellectual property theft

and having a good database of people they can approach or blackmail to help them destabilize governments they don't like (Ecuador, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc...)

and worse, if it's a government we like, what a nice database of information to share with their secret services on who needs to be arrested, brought down, demonized. Think Elliot Spitzer.

[woo me with science]

16. +100000

Thank you.

[xtraxritical]

47. The possibilities for blackmail are endless.

[Enthusiast]

163. Insufficient checks and balances......nt

[Autumn]

142. Right.

[magellan]

159. Yes, exactly -- I become more convinced of this every day

It's about projecting power and control. Impossible to do that without having our tentacles hooked into everything.

Hunting terrorists? That's an afterthought. An excuse. That's not where the money is made.

[Enthusiast]

164. The big picture............nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

28. "All this can't be just looking for terrorists,"

You are correct.
Now, think for a minute.
If not terrorists ( for the past THREE decades) who could possibly be the target???
3....2.....1

[Autumn]

141. The terrorists that they fear and can't control.

The people.

[dixiegrrrrl]

144. You got it.

which is why they are working so hard to make legitimate protest illegal, they call it domestic terrorism now.
Handy label, the T word...it can be used to justify almost sort of oppression and violence against people.

those who know their history recognize that some exteranl enemy has always been used to justify internal control of a population.

[Life Long Dem]

31. The NSA doesn't only cover terrorism.

There is also cyberwarfare.

Cyberwarfare refers to politically motivated hacking to conduct sabotage and espionage. It is a form of information warfare sometimes seen as analogous to conventional warfare,[1] and in 2013 was, for the first time, considered a larger threat than Al Qaeda or terrorism, by many U.S. intelligence officials.[2]

U.S. government security expert Richard A. Clarke, in his book Cyber War (May 2010), defines "cyberwarfare" as "actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation's computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption."[3]:6 The Economist describes cyberspace as "the fifth domain of warfare,"[4] and William J. Lynn, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, states that "as a doctrinal matter, the Pentagon has formally recognized cyberspace as a new domain in warfare . . . [which] has become just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space.

In 2009, President Barack Obama declared America's digital infrastructure to be a "strategic national asset," and in May 2010 the Pentagon set up its new U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), headed by General Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency (NSA), to defend American military networks and attack other countries' systems. The EU has set up ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency) which is headed by Prof. Udo Helmbrecht and there are now further plans to significantly expand ENISA's capabilities. The United Kingdom has also set up a cyber-security and "operations centre" based in Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent of the NSA. In the U.S. however, Cyber Command is only set up to protect the military, whereas the government and corporate infrastructures are primarily the responsibility respectively of the Department of Homeland Security and private companies.[4]

In February 2010, top American lawmakers warned that the "threat of a crippling attack on telecommunications and computer networks was sharply on the rise."[6] According to The Lipman Report, numerous key sectors of the U.S. economy along with that of other nations, are currently at risk, including cyber threats to public and private facilities, banking and finance, transportation, manufacturing, medical, education and government, all of which are now dependent on computers for daily operations.[6] In 2009, President Obama stated that "cyber intruders have probed our electrical grids."[7]

More... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare

[Autumn]

48. I can understand the cyberwarfare part to protect Americans

but wouldn't it be better to spend the time and money spent collecting the metadata on everyone to train computer security specialists,
since the article estimates that there are only about 1,000 qualified people in the country today, but needs a force of 20,000 to 30,000 skilled experts.

interesting article, thanks for the link.

[stevenleser]

4. Once again, I'm betting the Brazilian government already knows this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/fact-sheet-us-brazil-defense-cooperation
.
.
.

General Security of Military Information Agreement

Signed in November 2010 by Secretary Gates and Minister Jobim (and pending ratification by Brazil’s Senate), this Agreement would facilitate the sharing of classified defense and military information between the United States and Brazil.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Hey! Wanna talk about national security surveillance, the Fourth Amendment, and SPECIFICITY?

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Thats ALL we've been talking about

what the heck are YOU talking about?

[pnwmom]

155. The OP's not about any of that. It's about the US spying on Brazil. n/t

[stevenleser]

24. Sorry ignored, I cannot read your response. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

27. LOL. wow. nt

[stevenleser]

41. Not that big of a deal really. I'm sure a lot of ignore list additions have happened in the last

three weeks. I've added around 30 people to my ignore list and My stats tell me around 10 people have added me to their ignore list.

I've only added people who refuse to engage on the facts. I'm guessing whoever responded to me did so in a way that was fact-challenged and made completely superficial and emotional statements, probably with labeling and other juvenile accusations.

[nineteen50]

56. Had a boss that ignored everyone but his yes men.

Didn't work to well in the long run. He missed lots of necessary feedback.

[frylock]

68. plenty of feedback for these folks in their echo chamber

[stevenleser]

88. LOL, see my #85, I don't ignore people who have real arguments to make. nt

[stevenleser]

86. See my #85. I dont ignore people who actually have real arguments to make. nt

[nineteen50]

91. Who decides if it is real or not?

[stevenleser]

92. Their arguments decide. Do they have facts or are they emoting? How do they react when

presented with facts? Do they analyze and respond in kind or do they respond with logical fallacies and more emotion?

So, in a sense, they decide for themselves whether their arguments are real, just like students decide for themselves what grade they are going to get.

[nineteen50]

100. I get frustrated at times but eventually the right argument finds its way

through and emotions can be very effective motivators. I just think putting someone on ignore is wrong and then claiming they did it to them-self is a cop out.

[stevenleser]

108. Well, let's look at an example.

This person made a direct accusation against me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186292

and unfortunately for them I was able to refute it completely: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186325

Now, most people when they realized they had made a mistake that was clearly refuted with the facts would back up and say something, apologize, say you got me, something.

Not that person.

That kind of behavior is unfortunately typical of that side on the NSA issue with other less personal facts.

[nineteen50]

111. It is so much better to just let people expose their stupidity

and discredit themselves. What would your accuser have to say about all this?

[stevenleser]

113. Well, you can see their continued responses below. They're doubling down.

Here is the thing, I really don't have time for a whole lot of nonsense. I'm here for good discussions and to learn something new from fellow DUers. I'm out there actually trying to make a difference. Google my name if you don't know me. I'm out there fighting the good fight. I don't have time for dozens of responses that are factless nonsense.

[randome]

117. And of all people to dump on, at least you are trying to make a difference.

It's appreciated!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[99Forever]

84. Like you ever listen to anyone...

..that you don't agree with anyway.



Sycophants actually think people buy their horseshit.

[stevenleser]

85. Unlike you, I have proof when I say something. I can easily disprove what you just said.

Here is my discussion with Code Pink's Medea Benjamin on Drones. I disagree with her, but I certainly listened to her and let her say her piece on my show. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/02/11/making-sense-with-steve-leser--drones-the-week-in-review

So, we have now proved that you make false accusations without anything to back you up.

[99Forever]

87. Bullshit.

[stevenleser]

89. Too late, the proof of how you operate is there for everyone to see. nt

[99Forever]

90. Bullshit.

[stevenleser]

93. LMAO!

[99Forever]

95. It has been said...

... that the mental wards were filled with laughing people.

[stevenleser]

97. I did not know that. But I am not surprised that you do. nt

[99Forever]

99. Clearly, there are an infinite number...

.. of things you don't know, or at least, an infinite number of things you have a problem being honest about.

[Rex]

102. Plus he can never engage with any facts or actually debate

no wonder he is on Foxnews...birds of a feather etc..

[stevenleser]

118. LOL, you know the rules! Make that accusation, get a video!

[Rex]

101. 'I've only added people who refuse to engage on the facts.'

[stevenleser]

105. I know, I find it funny that so many refuse to engage on the facts too!!!! LMAO!!!!!

[RedCappedBandit]

135. I found that whole post to be somewhat ironic..

[dixiegrrrrl]

30. I just might make that my sig line...

My aptience with anti-Democratic posters is getting very thin.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. LOL

[flamingdem]

37. I would be very interested in Snowden's "dump" on Venezuela

Now that should have some goodies, but nothing terribly surprising

[randome]

43. Uhh...no thanks. I have little interest in looking at someone else's dump.

I can barely stand to occasionally check my own.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

44. ha ha that word has a schtink to it!

[randome]

69. "Oh, look! It's the hilarmoose!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

124. Ist dat die Schwiss food?

[sikofit3]

57. Thats what you all have been saying

About Europe and look at the fall out from that. I don't care if they "new" they were being spied on. The fact of the matter is the scale at which we did it, is even "news" to them.... definitely stepped over even the "everyone knows everyone is spying on everyone" line. It is useless and juvenile at this point in the game to say that.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

60. Of course, but now the Brazilian people know, too

Guess we're even now

[nebenaube]

5. So

So, there really is no viable business model outside of being subsidized to support the security state.

[HipChick]

8. Greenwald lives in Brazil....Brazilian companies in partnership..this is why it is a trap

Other than that...I can't see anything new....

It's a trap for Snowden to go to South America

[flamingdem]

14. Not sure I understand

.. the companies in partnership and trap part

[randome]

17. Don't go, Eddie!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

23. Eduardo cuidado es una trampa!

[longship]

185. Good old Admiral Ackbar. His one great line.

Thanks, friend!

on edit: I am really sorry that some DUers are channeling Jar-Jar Binks.



...apparently.

Myself, I'll stick to known facts.

[backscatter712]

25. Damn you, Catherina, you just sent the Snowden-bashers back to the drawing board!

They put so much work into those talking points! Do you know how long it takes for them to get feedback back from the focus groups? They're trying to avoid another backlash from things like calling black people racist, but you keep forcing them to rush!

[randome]

38. It doesn't take as long as you think.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Zorra]

65. Take me to your leader. nt

[Catherina]

74. I can't tell lol. Can't see them. And it's a long weekend too!

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/07/

[kenny blankenship]

33. Screw Brazil, I want to hear about the NSA and CARLOS SLIM!

He is the most interesting richest man in the world - if a little shlub-like in appearance.

In countries around the world, his dandruff is used as currency. He once lit a cigar with the entire Bank of England as his match. He is the only man who can make Bill Gates feel underprivileged. He is really really fucking rich, even though the people who made him that way are notoriously poor.

I would find it a tad hard to believe that we aren't dragnetting the privatized Mexican telecommunications monopoly, (personal property of Carlos Slim). I mean what with all the national security implications of a fully functional narco-state right on our southern border . If we are throwing legalities to the wind in the name of national security, one would expect that this would be one of the first places to get the Central Scrutinizer treatment.

[flamingdem]

35. One hopes the USA knows whatthehell is going on in Mexico

Especially since the new president is NOT focused on pursuing the drug war, he's focused on safety and that has worsened since he took office

[Rstrstx]

122. I have to disagree

Things have been improving, violence-wise, in Mexico over the past year. To be fair I think it had begun to wane before Peña Nieto took office but there are certainly fewer violent acts compared to a couple of years ago, especially against people not wrapped up in the drug wars. The border towns around here were so bad back in 2010 and 2011, even part of 2012, you could hear gunshots in the middle of the afternoon, they even closed bridges and may have even closed the UT-Brownsville campus once if I recall correctly. The worst action was at night, and it was common many nights. Today such incidents are rare, everyone I talk to over there say it has dramatically improved. The towns are certainly quieter at night than they used to be.

[flamingdem]

123. Thanks, it sounds like you're living this story

I'm referring to an article I read in the last month regarding public perception in Mexico of crime and the drug war. It said violence is slightly down in the last year but public fear is higher, something like that.

[Rstrstx]

154. Maybe in the interior of Mexico, but not here on the border

Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon were close to being war zones a couple of years ago, it has improved quite a bit. I know people who drive the Matamoros-Victoria highway (I used to be one of them up until the fall of 2009) and it was indeed known as the Highway of Death back in 2011. Now I have heard of no trouble from numerous people traveling the road, after some incidents the government stepped in and started policing it much more strictly. If you want to read the gory (and I do mean very gory) details of what allegedly took place in San Fernando, there is a summary at wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre

Some of the rumors were even worse than those described in the article, they were covered in borderlandbeat among other places.

My last visit to San Fernando had been in January 2009 to spend the night, and it was obvious even back then what a ghost town the place had become at night. Last month was my first trip back into Mexico in three and a half years (to Monterrey). It does give the impression that life is more or less normal, and I only went because Mexican friends had told me things were much better, though the town is vastly quieter at night than it used to be. Same in Matamoros, I've driven over there several times and while it has been completely calm it is certainly more mellow now once the sun goes down. But much better than back in 2011 when Brownsville residents could regularly hear gunshots going off. My last trip driving over there had been in 2010 and there were military vehicles cordoning off several streets back then, I haven't seen any of that lately.

Still, people in MX don't feel out of the woods yet, especially the more prominent citizens. Many bought or rented houses on the US side of the border the past several years to escape being shaken down or threatened (if you have money the US easily lets you in). A lot of them still work in Mexico they just go back and forth. As far as I can tell most of them are still here, heck even the mayor of Reynosa lives on the US side. It's a strange little world we live in down here for sure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. You can bet on it.

And also some of our telecoms are now playing down there too.

[KittyWampus]

128. that was an amusingly well written post. I commend you!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. The Brazilians hate us for our freedom?..democracy?...privacy?...well, something.

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[nineteen50]

63. But they love our war on drugs

very profitable

[wandy]

36. Just a side bet.....

However, this program (Prism) does not allow the agency access to the entire universe of communications. Large volumes of traffic calls and internet data occur outside the scope of the NSA and its partners for the use of Prism.

Where does this take me to wonder....
Well large amounts of electronic equipment is made off shore....
Foxcon comes to mind.
http://www.foxconn.com/
Apple, Samasung, Gigabyte, even ASUS for flippen sake.

Should I await a new ISP housed in the freedom loving Republic of China?
THEY wound never set up corporations to spy on the advantage man. (Ha Ha)

Snowden Smoden. Obama Shlupbama.
Is this another corporate war that we are looking at here?

[HiPointDem]

40. "Is this another corporate war that we are looking at here?"

aren't they all?

[krawhitham]

45. Any proof Greenwald and or Snowden are not just making shit up?

If Greanwald says the sky is red do you believe it or look for proof

[frylock]

70. the proof is in watching neo-liberals shitting their pants over these disclosures

[Rex]

106. Yes it is very funny watching them flop all over themselves

in their RAH RAH USA USA USA! I suspect most of them are not Dems at all.

[FarCenter]

46. The link just leads to a news article -- there are no new Snowden documents published

So we can't determine whether there is something in them or whether this is more of Glenn's fevered imagination.

[randome]

53. But it MIGHT be damaging to Obama! That's the point!

Especially judging by the OP's original, unedited post.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[jaysunb]

62. Correct....

Just more bullshit designed to sabatoge the 2014 elections and beyond.

[cantbeserious]

49. Thank You For Your Efforts

eom

[Catherina]

75. You're welcome

[Denzil_DC]

51. Back in 2008, Greenwald refused to believe Al Giordano about all this

Giordano received an email from Greenwald:

Someone just sent me a link to this claim you made yesterday:

Yes, this is already going on but not illegally! Here's how. All communications between the US and Mexico (and any other US ally) are being vacuumed up already by the Mexican-owned telecom companies and turned over to US agencies, with the full blessing of the Mexican state. The same goes for every other country in the hemisphere save Cuba and maybe Venezuela and/or Bolivia. Nothing illegal about it, because it's done with the imprimatur of those governments that have jurisdiction.

What's your basis for stating that every country in the hemisphere other than the three you mentioned turns over all communications involving a U.S. citizen to the U.S. Government?

Glenn Greenwald

Giordano replied (edited down to isolate the germane points):

In 1998, the Mexican daily El Universal reported on the existence of a telephone surveillance headquarters in Mexico City operated by the DEA with the permission of the Mexican government that did not solicit nor honor the concept of warranting their work with court orders and such. Since then, obviously, technological advances make all of this much easier for them to do on a wholesale level. In 2000 I asked some questions of the then-US ambassador to Mexico, in writing, about that and related matters:

http://www.narconews.com/questions.html

Predictably, he chose not to answer. But it's not even a well-kept secret in those circles that whatever technologies are available for surveillance purposes are being used to their maximum potential in Mexico and elsewhere simply because they can. (The concepts of case law and court precedents are entirely different in Mexico and elsewhere; there's no available recourse or protection from this, and no law being broken when a foreign government or company turns over information gained by unwarranted surveillance to US agencies. It's a loophole big enough to drive a Mac truck - or a Macintosh - through it.)

To answer your question more succinctly: Multiple sources in US and foreign police and intelligence agencies say that all communications between the US and Mexico and any other ally are being vacuumed up by foreign telecom companies and turned over to US agencies. They've said it for years, by the way. (Consequentially, I never say anything via email or telephone that I wouldn't mind them hearing. I think that's the bare minimum that a journalist or dissident has to do in this day and age for our own protection.)

Greenwald replied:

Can you point to anything published -- rather than claims you now make about what secret sources tell you -- to support your claim? Your claim wasn't restricted to Mexico, but to all countries in the hemisphere -- which includes Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and many others -- which are turning over communications with U.S. citizens to the U.S. Government.


That is an extraordinary claim to make -- in your desperate effort to defend Barack Obama in all that He does -- and I simply asked for your basis for the claim. Given how you responded, it doesn't surprise me that you would find a very simple, politely stated request of that kind to be offensive.

Glenn Greenwald

Giordano then basically told Greenwald to do his own donkey work on this. Greenwald's reply:

In other words, you have no basis for your claim that all governments in the hemisphere other than a few turn over to the U.S. government all communications involving U.S. citizens. You just made it up.

The commenters on Giordano's post easily turned up plenty of published evidence backing it up just by using Google.

Other than having a "scoop" delivered via Snowden, what changed between July 2008, when Greenwald refused to believe this was happening and seemed incapable of doing or unwilling to do basic research and dismissed those who'd already been campaigning on this, and now?

Hint: There was an election.

[randome]

54. Very interesting.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Denzil_DC]

55. I have my asbestos underoos on!

But anyone who wants to dispute this can take it up with Al Giordano.

[Savannahmann]

58. So in eight years.

Greenwald went from the guy who blasted Bush on this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022351594

To the guy who was Doubting Thomas on the continuation. In other words, looking for proof other than wild accusations.

To the guy who again wrote about it when he had more proof. So far, he doesn't sound like a complete asshole, but more along the lines of a guy who wanted his facts straight before he wrote anything. Damn him, doesn't he realize he's merely a tool for the RW? [/sarc]

[Denzil_DC]

64. "looking for proof other than wild accusations"

He point-blank refused to look for proof in 2008, and refused to believe there was anything to "continue"! He dismissed it out of hand, instead choosing to get snotty with Giordano, who's no saint but knows his stuff in this field and has had plenty of skin in the game, as the email exchange above shows (its as well to read the whole article). If only he'd learned to use Google ...

[Mojorabbit]

80. You don't know that

For all you know he did look and did not find enough to be certain one way or another. Or not. I hope most journalists are not getting their stories off google.

[Denzil_DC]

110. By the same token, you can't prove that he followed it up.

You really think journalists don't use Google, at least to identify initial leads and see what else has been written if they're researching an article? They also usually have access to resources like LexisNexis, even if they haven't managed to cultivate their own insider sources.

Greenwald, exchanging unencrypted emails with Al Giordano, whose many years of experience as a journalist in the field mean he can be classed as a primary source, expected him to tell Greenwald his own sources when the very subject they were discussing was electronic surveillance that included Brazil, where Greenwald lives! Seems rich in retrospect, no?

Per Giordano in the comments:

Not that I think that Greenwald or any lazy reporter deserves to demand that I or any other journo do his heavy lifting for him, but I sent those links along to him so that the reader's initiative might not have been a total waste of time.

I thought Greenwald was supposed to be an ace investigative reporter. Here's Giordano, a primary source in the field, giving him leads which he could follow up.

This remark of Giordano's seems like it might be prescient:

Look, here's how it works: Interest groups have staff that do research. They then cultivate reporters to which to spoon-feed that research, get it published, making the reporter look good, as if he's the one that did the digging. You have no idea how many Pulitzer Prizes came out of such spoon-fed Pablum.

[Mojorabbit]

119. Which is why I wrote, "or not"

Neither of us knows one way or another
Peace, Mojo

[Denzil_DC]

121. "Neither of us knows one way or another"

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Wow, I'm not used to folks acknowledging that in the face of inconclusive information round here nowadays! Maybe it'll catch on.

Peace back.

[KittyWampus]

129. Just learned something. Interesting. Thanks

[Number23]

137. Holy moly. How very, very innnnnnteresting.

Thanks for posting that.

[bigbadR]

52. American Telecommunications/Internet companies are not dead.

My god what private citizen or government official of any country in the world will want to do business with an American telecommunications or internet firm? The military/industrial/financial/surveillance /corporate state is an idiotarchracy. Amazing, just amazing.

[FarCenter]

61. Everything that is not encrypted by systems under your organization's control is assumed insecure

No one in the IT industry would think that information sent in the clear over common carriers is secure.

End-to-end encryption of transmissions and encryption of data at rest is mandatory for anything that must be kept private.

The US government is not the most significant adversary, since they are unlikely to use information maliciously, compared with, for example, organized crime rings.

[bunnies]

59. Is there a link to the NSA documents?

I cant find one.

[blkmusclmachine]

71. A new report states that the Feds scan all mail as it travels thru the Post Office.

Name, address, sender, etc., into a database.

For "security," of course.

[randome]

76. It helped them locate the ricin and asbestos mailers.

So it has practical value that I think most would agree with.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JoePhilly]

109. Your efforts to engage on this ...

... and move beyond the endless uninformed outrage are commendable.

I doubt that it will reduce the number of hair-on-fire OPs posted around here ... but its still great to see.

[randome]

115. Thanks.

When I 'hear' myself talk, it helps clarify matters for me, too.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Raine1967]

73. Doesn't Greenwald work for the Guardian?

I'm naive I guess, gut I assumed it would be a 'dump' from Greenwald via the Guardian. What is the new information here?

[Catherina]

77. He writes for several publications

Appropriate files from Snowden's collection were distributed to select journalists, with integrity, around the world so that they in turn, can release what they feel their populations need to know about what the US is doing to them. This is what was meant when Snowden, Greenwald, Assange said that even if the powers-that-be arrested or killed Snowden, the revelations were going to continue and couldn't be stopped.

This dump was for Brazil since most of their population doesn't read the Guardian. The new information is for them, about how their communications are intercepted because of corporate arrangements, even innocent ones, with US companies.

It may not seem like a dump to people here but in Brazil, this is today's big news.

[Raine1967]

82. I'm not trying to be obtuse here; I'm going to ask again: What information is new?

This article is online, just as the guardians articles from Greenwald.

Brazilians have the internet; what is new about this information? What constitutes this as being a greenwald dump? This is what I am asking because your OP makes it sound like we are getting new information -- and I don't see anything new. I could be wrong but I think you are saying that formerly released information is now being made available to Brazil. Am I wrong?

[Catherina]

94. This article is in Portuguese, in a Brazilian paper, for a Brazilian Audience

so yes, formerly released information is being made available to the Brazilian people with more to come, I'm quite sure of that.

So it is new to the little people on the street and will get quite a reaction from their business community that doesn't appreciate being spied upon. It will also spur the countries building different trade blocs and get away from the US neoliberal madness to find alternative routes for their communications so we can't spy on them and try to sabotage their deals, as we have constantly done.

This is a global issue and I like to present non US information because our corporate media does a rotten rob of keeping us informed.

[Raine1967]

104. Thank you.

At this point, I would have thought that Greenwald's articles published by the Guardian had already been interpreted into other languages.

My main question was about new information, I appreciate your answer.

[Catherina]

107. I'll bear your helpful comments in mind for the next title :) n/t

[Raine1967]

112. Huh?

I was asking questions and trying to clarify things that I wasn't clear about.

I appreciated your answer and said so. I don't quite understand this reply.

[Catherina]

145. ?

I was thanking you for your helpful comments about an unclear title. Nothing more than that.

[wtmusic]

79. This is still not proof.

j/k

[Catherina]

83. Lol!

[indepat]

96. Everyone every where should realize Big Brother is just trying to keep us and all

our friends safe from terra, so every one should stay cool, calm, and collected, and absolutely no one should be getting their knickers in a twist.

[backscatter712]

98. As Bill Hicks would have said, "Go back to bed, America!"

[indepat]

120. Bill Hicks said it so much better than I. We should all go back to our mundane existences, sousing

our brains with senseless swill and drivel, keeping our mouths shut except to rat out our neighbors, and counting on Big Brother to tend to the nation's business in secrecy and on a need-to-know basis.

[Kahuna]

114. Oh brother... MILLIONS of Brazillian emails???

I doubt that... One or two...Maybe?

[Harmony Blue]

133. Unfortunately it highly likely is true

[Fumesucker]

147. No, it was brazillions

[pnwmom]

153. So? Our spying agency is spying on Brazil, and has been doing so for THREE DECADES.

What do people think the CIA and NSA were doing all this time? Spying on other countries.

From the OP: "explains how US citizens have a figleaf of protection but "monitoring people, companies and foreign institutions is NSA's mission, as defined in Presidential Order (number 12333) for three decades"

Maybe they've had some good reasons for spying on Brazil. Like this, for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117093/Secret-files-reveal-9-000-Nazi-war-criminals-fled-South-America-WWII.html

Nine thousand Nazi war criminals fled to South America after the Second World War, it has been revealed for the first time.

After receiving tip-offs, German prosecutors were recently granted access to secret files in Brazil and Chile that confirmed the true number of Third Reich immigrants.

According to the documents, an estimated 9,000 war criminals escaped to South America, including Croatians, Ukrainians, Russians and other western Europeans who aided the Nazi murder machine.

Most, perhaps as many as 5,000, went to Argentina; between 1,500 and 2,000 are thought to have made it to Brazil; around 500 to 1,000 to Chile; and the rest to Paraguay and Uruguay.

[Laelth]

160. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[suffragette]

165. I think we are seeing something historical here

And not just the information about the surveillance (though that is extremely important).

As we have been become more globalized, the corporations and financial sectors have been taking advantage (in more ways than one) of the globalization trend.
We have also gained more immediate access to information from primary news sources globally.

But this is the first time I've noticed that such a major series of news stories is being disseminated to the different regions so they can publish the aspect(s) that affect them the most and have these first published in their own primary news agencies, rather than siphoning all of the information through a primary news agency in one region. Basically, it is a decentralization of what has been a centralized process.

[Catherina]

178. Yes! n/t

[WillyT]

175. K & R !!!

[Quantess]

176. Millions of Brazilians

That rhymes.
K & R

[allin99]

177. Brazil requests clarification from the US....

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Foglobo.globo.com%2Fmundo%2Fbrasil-cobra-esclarecimentos-aos-estados-unidos-sobre-espionagem-8946033

"The Brazilian government has received with grave concern the news that electronic communications and telephone calls of Brazilian citizens were the subject of spying by U.S. intelligence agencies. We request clarification from the U.S. government through the Embassy of Brazil in Washington and across the U.S. ambassador to Brazil, "the note said.

[Catherina]

179. Thanks you! Was just coming to post something similar n/t

[Catherina]

180. Brazil wants answers on US surveillance |US complains Snowden messed up "the importance of trust".

Brazil wants answers on US surveillance
Last updated: 2 hours ag

...

Brazil's foreign minister has said his government is worried by a report that the United States has collected data on millions of telephone and email conversations in his country and promised to push for international protection of internet privacy.

Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota on Sunday expressed "deep concern at the report that electronic and telephone communications of Brazilian citizens are being the object of espionage by organs of American intelligence.

...

Patriota also said Brazil will ask the UN for measures "to impede abuses and protect the privacy'' of internet users, laying down rules for governments.

...

There was no immediate response from the office of the US national intelligence director's office on Sunday, but in response to earlier reports of covert monitoring in Europe, the office said it would respond to concerns of specific nations through diplomatic channels.

...

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Sunday that Snowden's overall disclosures have undermined US relationships with other countries and affected what he calls "the importance of trust".

...

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201377185113198877

[allin99]

181. omg, lol @ "the importance of trust", lmao!!!....

says the country that is spying on literally EVERYONE

[Catherina]

182. I know! Do these people even hear themselves lol? n/t

[allin99]

183. double speak in effect, kinda like: no wheeling and dealing...

and no scrambling jets.

Now *there's* some people you can trust. lol. NOT.

[Catherina]

184. Updated OP with graphics. Thanks Cleita! n/t