Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald?

[GiaGiovanni]

The NSA is in fact collecting phone records--meta data, at very last--from average Americans without a warrant. We have heard about the NSA's unconstitutional activities from others, including whistle blower Bill Binney.

What exactly is Greenwald saying that is a lie?

[Thinkingabout]

1. You have just posted one reason, you know well there is a warrant, so if GG is saying there is not a

warrant, it is a lie.

[truebluegreen]

3. A blanket warrent that covers everybody is not a warrant

that a reasonable person should accept. It means exactly nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

15. A warrant is a warrant, does not have to meet your requirements.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"particularly" doesn't mean EVERYONE.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Things seized, would you think things is phone call records, BTW, the warrants are issued to the

communications companies, the records belongs to the company.

[msanthrope]

78. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people

to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the 200-plus years of jurisprudence that has gone on since passage of that amendment, do you think there might be any SCOTUS rulings, statutes, conflicts with state constitutions, political questions, or modern circumstances that might inform and affect the debate of that Right?

Yes? Then why short-shrift the 4th? There's a whole body of law out there about the 4th, and I find reductionist arguments about the amendments tend to miss their point.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

80. Sure. For the past 200 years warrants have been thrown out....

.... and invalidated for not being specific enough. That's the letter of the law, the spirit of the law and how the law has been performed for the last 200 years.

What was your point?

[msanthrope]

82. My point is that your argument is a bit thin when you try to claim that a search warrant for a

person's home, and a FISA court issuance for a business record held by a third party are the same thing.

You are not arguing with specificity.

[Thinkingabout]

144. What are you saying, do you think warrants are only issued to search your home? No wonder so

Many are so confused. Where did you get the information warrants are only for people?

[msanthrope]

146. Of course not. What I'm saying is that conflating different scenarios

only invites confusion. To merely quote an amendment is facile.

[GiaGiovanni]

244. What scenarios are being conflated?

Thanks.

[truebluegreen]

59. If a "warrant" covers everyone,

where is the sense in calling it a warrant? Is there reasonable cause to believe everyone is breaking the law, and if there isn't why is everyone covered under the "warrant"? Isn't that...unwarranted?

Try thinking about it.

[Thinkingabout]

61. Try thinking about this, it is not a warrant issued to the individual, it is issued to the

communications company, it is their records, not your records. Try thinking outside of the box you have placed yourself, plain and simple, warrants are issued to companies also.

[truebluegreen]

67. OK. If we accept your premise, answer me this:

What probable cause does the government have to show that the communications companies committed a crime?

"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...."

[Thinkingabout]

68. It is not about the communication companies committing a crime, like when a crime is committed such

as a murder and a warrant is issued to see who the suspected criminal phone records, to see who was called and in the world of cell phone usage to see where the person was at the time of the calls. We have had terrorist bombing or attempting to bomb places in the US and outside the US on US facilities.. This would be a crime, in the process of attempting to curtail bombings most of us know there are communications between suspected terrorist. I hope this simple answer will aid you in understanding.

[truebluegreen]

74. Honey, you need to get out more.

Warrants shall not be issued except in the event that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Period.

This is the problem with blanket "warrants" scooping up information from communication companies or all individuals. There is NO evidence of a crime to support it.

You can call it a "warrant" 'til the cows come home but it doesn't meet the definition of one.

[Thinkingabout]

143. I know what the Fourth amendment states, I know warrants are issued to communication

Companies. Crime is committed in planning to kill someone, like the murders for hire, it is not necessary to kill a person to have charges brought for plotting.

You can deny it the warrants until the cows come home but it will not change the existence of them.

[truebluegreen]

147. So, the communications companies are planning to kill someone?

You may have read the 4th Amendment but clearly you don't understand it.

And calling a ham sandwich a warrant doesn't change its nature.

[Thinkingabout]

157. I don't think you are able to comprehend so you will just need to stay in your rut in life,

Hopeless to continue with the facts, I have attempted to explain so even the young can understand but I can't be successful every time. I know I did not match your opinion but it still does nit change the facts, warrants has been issued, perhaps not to your liking but I am not sure they will ever be to your liking.

[randome]

224. The 4th Amendment applies to individuals, not corporations.

That seems to be the relevant difference to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[truedelphi]

154. + 10,000 n/t

[midnight]

200. Thank you....

[sabrina 1]

175. So, who committed the crime? Millions of Americans who are customers of

Verizon and presumably other Big Corps?? You cannot legally get a warrant without showing probable cause of wrong doing.

So what was the probable cause that caused some court, a secret court, to issue a warrant to spy on millions of people? I'm one of them, I'd like to know what I am accused of in some secret court where no one can find out what they are accused of. Millions of people?? All did something so wrong that a warrant to 'collect and store' their personal data was issued??

I cancelled the spying phone company, Verizon, this week. They denied they are spying on their customers, but that is a lie, we KNOW they are.

[msanthrope]

72. You don't need probable cause for third party business records. And you don't need a warrant for

such. A subpoena will do.

[HiPointDem]

98. warrants were never issued to individuals, so not sure what your point is. 'thinking

outside the box,' is that the new whitewashing phrase for tyrannical power?

[Thinkingabout]

178. In this case warrants are not issued to individuals, this thread has been about a post I responded

To in which the poster said warrants had not been issued to 300 million people and I pointed out the warrants had been issued to the communication companies. The phone call records belong to the companies. Therefore for those who think there is warrantless collecting of phone call records it is simply not true. I know there are some who do not want the truth and wants sources or links and when provided claim they don't get their information from those sources are just refusing to accept the truth. If one wants to be an activist that is fine but they do not advance their cause through lies or refusing to tell the truth.

[HiPointDem]

186. the warrants are to effectively search the records of 300 million people. fail.

[Waiting For Everyman]

96. It has to meet Constitutional requirements though, which bulk surveillance does not.

A mass "warrant" is not Constitutional. Therefore, not legal.

The only thing making it technically legal at this point, is that the newly-filed legal challenges against it (made possible by Snowden's evidence) have not come to hearing in court yet.

[truedelphi]

171. Why why why

Do you hate 'murca??

[Thinkingabout]

180. Where is your proof "mass" warrant is not constitional? How do you get "mass" in the first place.

It is a warrant to the communication company.

[Mojorabbit]

251. Good grief. nt

[JackRiddler]

217. Absolutely NOT a warrant under 4th Amendment.

[JackRiddler]

218. A legal order is a legal order if the state says so.

The same claim all dictatorships use, is that what you want?

[Fearless]

264. A warrant by definition CANNOT be generic.

[Recursion]

285. It's not. It's specific to the telco provider

It's the provider's data, and the warrants are specific to them.

[MNBrewer]

290. Specific data, from a specific person, for a specific reason

Just saying "we want to search this specific house" won't cut it.

[Recursion]

291. Actually "we want to search this specific house" happens all the time.

But anyways, the specific person is the fictitious person "Verizon Communications, Inc." (corporations have been "people" in this sense for centuries).

[MNBrewer]

296. I don't believe that, and if it does happen, it violates the 4th Amendment

"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Recursion]

297. What part of "the places to be searched" is unclear

The place has to be specified, and what you want.

[MNBrewer]

298. ANd the items or persons to be seized.

Just saying we're going to search this house... for whatever or whomever we find in it is constitutionally insufficient. Just like saying we're going to take all this "metadata" from this specific company, lacking probable cause.

[Recursion]

299. "Persons" mean people you want to arrest

The warrant is clearly formally valid: search Verizon's datacenters, for telephony records. Nothing else can be seized

[Fearless]

300. Bingo!

[MNBrewer]

167. ^^^ THIS

[sabrina 1]

7. And you just stated the problem yourself. ONE warrant, issued AFTER THE FACT for millions of people

What was the probable cause, which is required for a warrant, of wrongdoing by all American citizens??

[Thinkingabout]

17. Warrants are renewed from time to time.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Please read the 4th amendment.

[Thinkingabout]

20. I have read the Fourth amendment, it requires a warrant, warrants have been issued.

[Bradical79]

45. You either are lying

or you don't understand the 4th amendment.

[Thinkingabout]

65. I am not lying, you can reserve this for those who continue to insist warrants have not been issued

to communication companies. You don't understand, warrants can be issued for "things", things like phone call records. Do you think they are going to issue a warrant to you personally?

[GiaGiovanni]

283. "When the secret court was created in 1978, it was meant to authorize targeted searches"

"When the secret court was created in 1978, it was meant to authorize targeted searches, but sometime around 2004 it began, in secret, to issue general warrants"

[Thinkingabout]

284. You must be getting your information from birds on a line, warrants for phone call records has

Occurred for many years. Do some research to find out the reason for the FISA Act, why it was enacted. Well before FISA which occurred around 1978 phone cal records was used in courts to establish evidence in cases being tried. Don't continue to sell your information to others, lots of know what the truth is and it is not your story.

[Bragi]

46. Let's call them Neo-Warrants

This would distinguish them from the old fashioned crime and person specific warrants. They'd still sound sort of the same, but wouldn't conflict with all that 4th amendment nonsense.

[GiaGiovanni]

247. This might actually be part of the problem:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Early 1980s: FBI Encounters Problems Passing Intelligence Information to Criminal Prosecutors, ‘Wall’ Arises
Edit event

Due to apparent problems with the use of intelligence information in criminal proceedings, a set of procedures that later becomes known as the “wall” begins to take shape. The FBI, which performs both criminal and counterintelligence functions, normally obtains two types of warrants: criminal warrants and warrants under the recently passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA warrants are thought to be easier to obtain, as the FBI only has to show that there is probable cause to believe the subject is a foreign power or an agent of one. Sometimes a case begins as an intelligence investigation, but results in a criminal prosecution. In court the defense can then argue that the government has abused FISA and obtained evidence by improperly using the lower standard, so any evidence obtained under FISA should not be allowed in court. Although the government can use information it happens to obtain under a FISA warrant for a criminal prosecution, if the purpose of obtaining information under a FISA warrant is for a criminal prosecution, this is in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches. To combat this apparent problem, the special FISA Court decides that for a warrant under FISA to be granted, collecting intelligence information must be the primary purpose, although such information can be used in a criminal investigation provided the criminal investigation does not become the primary purpose of the surveillance or search. As a result of these procedures, when the FBI is conducting an intelligence investigation and uncovers evidence of criminal activity, it no longer consults local United States Attorneys’ Offices, but prosecutors within the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The prosecutors then decide when the local attorney’s office should become involved. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 21-24 pdf file] The wall will be extended in the 1990s (see July 19, 1995) and will be much criticized before and after 9/11 (see July 1999 and April 13, 2004).

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. So how many warrants have been issued against you?

20? 40? More? Were you really aware, before this, that the government had all those warrants against you?

[truebluegreen]

2. What Greenwald is saying reflects poorly on President Obama.

Therefore, it must be a lie, a smear, personal animus or enemy action.

[forestpath]

5. +1

[hlthe2b]

11. +1 And...

note how many of the most vociferous posts are made by newbies... One that most strongly defended all things NSA this AM was a first post--so tell me we are not being manipulated....

Like Greenwald or detest him, we need to realize that we are being manipulated by those with an agenda that may well not match our own.

[Psephos]

159. yes, you have nailed it n/t

[AgingAmerican]

185. Astroturfing®

Astroturfing on the internet

[laundry_queen]

287. Lots of that kind of thing going on. nt

[burnodo]

16. This is EXACTLY the reason

well put

[treestar]

28. It doesn't reflect poorly on President Obama

And the OP is a whine about someone making posts not adoring Greenwald. So your response is irrelevant. If one side can whine, the other can.

[burnodo]

34. Adoring! Limbaugh! Lies! Propaganda! Irrelevant!

[RC]

54. You nailed it!

That is it. How can anyone not worship Obama? We all know he can not do any wrong. Why, he is one of us and that's enough that needs to be said.

[hughee99]

71. Exactly, once someone figures out a good way to blame ONLY the repukes for the NSA spying,

Greenwald will be back on everyone's christmas card list.

[GiaGiovanni]

203. It can't just be that strictly partisan

can it?

[hughee99]

204. For some people, I suspect it is.

If a repuke were still president, I can't imagine the policy would find more than one or two (at most) defenders here. I guess it's possible that might happen because all the NSA spying supporters would remain quiet for fear of appearing to defend a repuke, but I don't believe that's the case. I think if you gave them a way to be against the NSA spying without also having to lay some of the blame a the president's feet for his inaction in fixing this, you could swing a good number of people on it.

[GiaGiovanni]

205. Being a "team player" is not appropriate when great harm is being done

.

[hughee99]

209. I agree completely. n/t

[GiaGiovanni]

210. It seems that some people don't

This is probably the most serious civil rights issue that we will face in our lifetime. Once the government has all our data, we have no freedom. Our data will be mined, computer algorithms will predict our future behavior before we even do it, and law enforcement will be directed where to go and who to watch, even if we have done nothing wrong.

[delrem]

236. Yes, in this case it is.

[GiaGiovanni]

100. Spying on every communication of every citizen reflects poorly on the entire government

If trashing Greenwald is about partisan politics and not about the merits of the case, then that would be unfortunate.

[truebluegreen]

121. I agree--emended to "everyone in the government

who was responsible for it." But I think much of the outrage here relates to President Obama.

[GiaGiovanni]

124. So it's personal?

That certainly could be. If this came out during Dubya's tenure, there might be a very different reaction. Of course there is no way to tell.

[truebluegreen]

126. ?? Sorry, you need to clarify:

what's personal? Attitude toward Greenwald, toward Obama, toward Bush?

ETA: My comment was intended to express the idea that "spying on every citizen reflects poorly on every member of the government responsible for it", not on "the entire government." That's all.

[GiaGiovanni]

131. Ah. The trashing of Greenwald

I was agreeing with your point, although there is no way to tell definitively.

[Catherina]

106. It's extremely sad that a public servant has been elevated to the an icon of adoration

Stupefying.

[truebluegreen]

125. Absolutely.

It is similar to the vitriol directed at him from across the aisle: neither seems to be affected by facts.

[Vanje]

196. Therefore, it must be a lie, a smear, personal animus or enemy action.

Also, in 2006, he said something I don't agree with, and he is a poo poo bottom.

Additionally, he didn't expose anything that we already didn't know about, (Plagerism!) and he leaves the toilet seat up, and he's lying, and he's aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, and China, and Russia, and he can't prove any of it, and when he was a lawyer he lost a case once.
!!!!!LIBERTARIAN!11!! Bush-ite!!!11!! Republican!!!!1 He has an Obama voodoo doll that he sticks pins in every day. and he's an egotist, and he's writing a book.....FOR MONEY!!! He talks with his mouth full, and ..Brazil WTF!

And, I almost forgot: FireDogLake! FireDogLake!! (I hadn't heard about FDL for quite a while. Probably time to dust it off. Some people need fresh material.

There. Did I cover it?

[KoKo]

211. lol's...

you forgot..."Libertarian, Paulbot."

[Vanje]

213. ...and

"Opportunist" and "Gadfly"

I'll bet that bastard doesn't even curb his dog!

[truth2power]

202. Best post, so far. THAT is the crux of it. Everything else

is just sound and fury. Amen.

[uponit7771]

214. ...said most wingers, looks funny here on DU though

[Life Long Dem]

242. Or it reflects on Greenwald wanting a New York Times bestseller

[truebluegreen]

256. Really?

The collective pile-on--other people's actions--are because he's a publicity hound.

Right.

[RetroLounge]

258. +100

This is it in a nutshell...

RL

[JoePhilly]

4. The NSA has warrants to collect the meta data.

If you can't get that simple fact straight, there's really no reason to discuss Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

12. No, the NSA had ONE warrant. How on earth did they get only ONE warrant to coolect and store the

data of every American Citizen?? How did they prove probable cause of wrong doing on EVERY Aamerican Citizen? Do YOU know how this was done?

[pnwmom]

18. SCOTUS ruled decades ago that the collection of phone bill type metadata

does not require a warrant.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

193. that was for one suspect, we are talking about massive suspicionless spying now, totalitarians wet d

Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!

Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337

Hmmm... who knew who influential a DU meme could be

[Thinkingabout]

21. How do you get one warrant, warrants are issued all the time, not one warrant.

[sabrina 1]

50. Could you give us an example of ONE WARRANT being issued for 300 MILLION people

Just one example. You these warrants are 'issued all the time'. Presumably with someone showing Probable Cause of Wrongdoing, as required by the Law of the Land.

So, I'm interested to know, and have been asking this now since we found out, as a Verizon Customer whose data 'has been accessed, collected and stored', I want to see the WRONG DOING I was accused of in order for the Goverment to get that warrant! So far no one has been able to tell me, maybe you can??

Yes, warrants are issued all the time, individual warrants. That is NOT what we are talking about here, so please do not conflate the two.

[Thinkingabout]

57. My goodness, after all this time and all the discussion on this subject and from your post I can see

where the turmoil may be coming. The warrants are issued to the communication companies since the records belongs to the communication companies. Warrants can be issued to individuals or companies, it is not reserved to individuals. I hope this clears up this question for you, when someone asks you how this is done, the communication companies are submitting their phone call records in compliance to the warrant they are issued.

[truebluegreen]

60. My goodness but that is simplistic and wrong-headed.

Try thinking about it some more.

[Thinkingabout]

63. Apparently your are referring to yourself as wrong-headed, if you do want to change and get the

correct information then you may understand about these warrants, if not you will have to live in your wrong-headed world.

[sabrina 1]

62. What warrants, no matter who owns something, warrants must be issued ONLY with

probably cause of wrongdoing. So even if we were to accept this newfound 'ownership' meme, what exactly did the Telecoms do wrong???

Where is the probably cause?

And no, those records do NOT belong to the telecoms, no matter how many times you repeat that talking point.

I just ended my permission to Verizon to have access to my data, because they violated their own privacy agreement with ME, the OWNER of the records. I have now taken back the records from them.

[JoePhilly]

23. The meta dats belongs to the company that connects the calls.

If you write down who you call and how long you talk on a piece of paper, that belongs to you.

Bottom line: The claim in the OP is false.

[sabrina 1]

31. Really? So your Bank records are not yours, your medical records are not yours? This talking point,

which is totally ridiculous, that our data belongs to someone else, is now going to be tested in many courtrooms.

I have already called Verizon to cancel our phone stating that they had shared MY data with the government.

Apparently Verizon never heard that theory you just posted, that WE don't OWN our OWN data. Verizon told me that they 'would not share' our data with anyone. I pointed out the proof of what they have done.

See, they are trying to defend themselves because YOU ARE WRONG. Their OWN PRIVACY statement, which I read to them, assures customers, like me, that they will protect our privacy.

So, the lawsuits are starting because this myth that we don't own our own records needs to go away.

[JoePhilly]

33. You better call GMAIL or who ever else provides your email and

internet account too then.

At the bank ... the money is yours, the records of the transactions belong to the bank. They have to be able to keep track of how money moves their their bank.

Did you know that if anyone makes a cash deposit of over something like 10k$, the government is notified?

The company that sends you emails keeps track of them too. They have records of where they send email, and they use it to manage their business.

Your lawn guy's records belong to him. That includes a record of how often he cuts your lawn and how much you pay him.

The lawsuits will fail so long as the records involved are not the specific property of an individual.

And again since you are avoiding it ... the claim in the OP is wrong. There are warrants.

[sabrina 1]

38. Gmail has a privacy statement. Did you read it? You're spreading false information. The ONLY way

the government can access YOUR info is with A WARRANT showing PROBABLE CAUSE OF WRONGDOING, because in none of the privacy statements I have read does it say 'we share your personal data, posting and/or calling data WITH THE GOVERNMENT. No where. In fact they have consistently denied doing so.

People are now asking Verizon, et al, to show them the warrant they used, showing that people like me, did something so wrong that a court issued a warrant showing what that wrong doing was, before they handed over THEIR data.

You have a very poor understanding of the rights guaranteed to US citizens in their Constitution. Not just our Constitution, but the EU Bill of Rights, and every other Democracy on the face of the earth.

So far we have not seen those individual warrants.

We have not been told what we did wrong that allowed the government to stalk and snoop on our activities.

The only info gmail, FB, the Banks Drs etc can share is WHAT WE AGREED TO.

Millions of Americans never agreed to have the government spying on them.

This is such a dangerous thing you are pushing here. A real threat to this Democracy.

As for the banks knowing what you are depositing or taking out, that too needs to go. It was a terrible policy which people have been and still are outraged by and people take steps to prevent it because they know about it.

Iow, you are now USING a bad law to try to excuse even worse attacks on our rights. Unbelievable.

[JoePhilly]

44. The government can get a warrant and GMAIL would have to

turn over the information. The fact you and gmail have "agreed" to something else, is irrelevant.

Now, a LAWYER or a DOCTOR can refuse to give the government information about you, even if the government has a warrant, because there has been a legal structure has been created for those situations.

What you are arguing for is a similar legal arrangement for communications companies. Now all we need is some one in congress to propose that.

And how would it be possible for the bank to not know how much you deposit or withdraw? They sort of need that information.

[msanthrope]

81. Sometimes, I just want to send episodes of the "The Wire" to individual posters. Maybe it

would help....maybe not. Sabrina is a court reporter, fyi, according to a post she made to me yesterday.

[sabrina 1]

85. You keep making my point without realizing it. If the data doesn't belong to us,

these Corps could simply comply willingly with the Government WITHOUT a warrant, but the data DOES belong to us, so the cannot just hand it over knowing they will be sued by the owners of the data, US, making it necessary to get a warrant.

However, what has now been revealed is that they got only ONE WARRANT, with so far, NO PROOF that warrant was obtained legally, with proof of PROBABLE CAUSE OF WRONGDOING by over THREE HUNDRED MILLION OWNERS OF THE DATA.

What you are proposing is chilling. It is worse that Orwell imagined. It is shameful to see anyone who values the system of justice we boast so much about in this country, willingly give up all of our rights, and for what??

Give up your own rights if you want, but don't think you can throw away the rights of the rest of us. A majority of the people now oppose these anti-Constitutional crimes that, unbelievably there are still a few people desperately trying to defend.

[Egnever]

255. Where in the world did you get the idea the data belonged to you?

LOL

[GiaGiovanni]

282. Because it's personal data

The content of phone calls is personal. We expect the phone company to track phone numbers in order to bill us, but we do not expect full recordings of every conversation we have to be made.

[msanthrope]

79. That is utterly and completely incorrect. You claim to be a court reporter---have you never heard

of a subpoena? Have you never heard of a grand jury? A third-party business record does not require a warrant.

The only info gmail, FB, the Banks Drs etc can share is WHAT WE AGREED TO.

Um no. Just no.

[sabrina 1]

86. Yes, I have heard of subpoenas and WARRANTS showing PROBABLE CAUSE

of wrong-doing, the ONLY excuse for Gmail or anyone else to violate their own agreements with their customers.

And THAT is the problem, there were no such warrants, no probable cause that millions of Verizon Customers did anything wrong. Only one blanket warrant, claiming, what exactly re wrong doing on the part of millions of people??? We have been asking but there has been no answers so far. That is why now so many court cases are being prepared, to get those answers.

Even the least educated person in the country understands the 4th Amendment which is why the numbers are now climbing in opposition to these violations every week.

It's good to see finally that when the American people have the information they need, thank YOU Whistle Blowers, they are able to judge, as Ron Wyden stated, right from wrong.

[msanthrope]

94. Subpoenas don't require probable cause. Your gmail records can be

subpeoned without probable cause. Good luck with Verizon...let us know how it goes.

[sabrina 1]

122. It's going fine with Verizon, we are not being spied on by them anymore. Wish we had known

sooner, could have saved all that money we spent on 'records that don't belong to us'! Unbelievable nonsense.

A subpoena can be challenged and should be, in court, when it has no legitimate reason to be issued.

Warrants DO require probable cause, but you knew that. It is Warrants that are at issue now and we will eventually get answers thanks to Democrats like Conyers, among others.

[neverforget]

168. Good Lord, no wonder why there is so much disinformation out there regarding the 4th Amendment.

The lack of knowledge on legal terms is frightening.

[sabrina 1]

302. Yes, that is what Michelle Bachman says, but we all know what to think of ANYTHING that

woman has to say.

Now back to reality. I just proved my records belong to me last week when I contacted Verizon to end my business with them. They TRIED to assure me my records are private AND MINE and would not be SHARED BY THEM with the Government. I told them to stop lying to me, and they would no longer have control of MY RECORDS. I did not give them my permission to share my records with Government. They did NOT agree with Michelle Bachman that those records do not belong to me, they AGREED WITH ME. And I proved by taking back control of my records out of THEIR hands because they VIOLATED their privacy agreement with me.

I feel so sorry for people who think they don't own anything anymore, and who are willing to actually pay to be betrayed.

I truly do. Not for Michelle Bachman, she benefits from telling these lies, but for the poor people who buy what she is selling.

MY RECORDS BELONG TO ME. Now they out of the hands of a company that betrayed their own privacy agreement with their customers.

I take someone's word seriously. I despise liars. Verizon lIED and as a result they lost at least one customer, probably a whole lot more considering how hard they tried to convince me to remain as a customer.

[sabrina 1]

305. We have a business. We have customer records. Those records are between the customer and

us. There is no way we would turn those records over to a third party especially the Government without the customer's permission.

I have told you before, this is a Michelle Bachman talking point. It is shameful to see it here and I sure hope no one believes it. Or this democracy is over.

I gave g-mail permission to keep my records with limited use when I signed up. I have already established with Veriizon that my records are in their care ONLY according to the Privacy Agreement I signed with them. Nowhere in that agreement did I give them permission to hand over my records for the purpose of spying on me. Had that been in their agreement I would never have signed up with them.

A contract is a contract, they broke it, I took my records out of their hands.

[Thinkingabout]

58. Where are they getting the data from, you the individual?

[sabrina 1]

87. Not any more, now that I know what they were doing with it. I have cancelled our Verizon

account. Their privacy statement never included the claim that 'we own your data and can pass it along to the government without your knowledge'. Iow, they violated their own privacy policy.

[Thinkingabout]

88. Surely if you do not use cell phones or the internet, and similar devices your records will be zero.

I am not afraid of the information collected neither am I concerned if my phone line is wiretapped. I am not paranoid about these issues

[GiaGiovanni]

99. Thinkingabout:you have made claims here about the blanket warrant

I am not going to argue with you because you have provided no evidence to the Constitutionality of the warrant outside of your opinion. There are no links to legal arguments supporting your claim.

When you care to provide actual evidence, I'll be happy to read it.

[Thinkingabout]

136. The Constitution is a good document foryou to start with, in fact the Fourth

Amendment covers information about warrants for people or things. A warrant is iddued to the communication companies for a "thing" which happens to be phone call records which are the property of the communication companies. For further reading read the FISA Act, plenty of information for you to understand.

BTW, where is your link in your comment, didn't see one.

[GiaGiovanni]

139. When you provide information I'll read your post

I don't accept anyone's personal opinion over the internet.

Thank you.

[Thinkingabout]

142. Well, it is not necessary for you to read my post, in fact it is not necessary for you to

Read my post ever or it is not necessary for you to ask for me to post a link. Most people here knows how to do searches to find the information they seek. I doubt your sincerity to obtain the information so just deal with it.

BTW, where is your link proving what I said was wrong. Same goes to you, provide me a link or I don't have to believe your opinion. Hope this sets everything to your liking.

[Vanje]

197. If you were running for public office,

would you be so happy about members of your opponents party having a look at your phone records....oh, Ahem. excuse me, your phone company's records of your calls. How would you feel being wire-tapped then?

[Thinkingabout]

199. I guess I need to restate myself a second time, I don't care if my phone calls, internet, etc

Are monitored, I have nothing to hide. Having my phone call records in a data base does not bother me. There is a history behind the FISA act, if a warrant is issued to wiretap my phone then this would be in keeping with the Fourth amendment, I may not agree with the Constitution entirely but this is the law of the land, I choose to remain in the USA and I need to comply.

[Vanje]

201. This is satire, isnt it?

[GiaGiovanni]

241. No, I think he means it.

.

[Egnever]

257. The fact that you think reality is anything other than what he posted frightens me.

One reads that sort of disdain for the truth and can only hope you flip burgers for a living and are not in control of the fryer...

[Recursion]

292. The web logs for my hosting business most certainly belong to me and not my customers

Absolutely.

[sabrina 1]

304. I believe I have addressed this Michelle Bachman talking point in several posts already. So here I

will simply say I have taken MY records out of the hands of a Corporation who violated their own Privacy Agreement with me and now they have no more control over MY records.

I really wish we didn't see these Republican talking points here on DU. I am sick to death of trying to correct them.

ANYTHIING Michelle Bachman has to say should never be repeated on Democratic Forum other than to correct it.

You may agree with Michelle Bachman if you want to. I agree with the US Constitution, I opposed and still do ALL Bush 'polices' and I know what belongs to me and what does not. I certainly do not need Michelle Bachman to explain it to me.

[Recursion]

286. One per provider. They're taking the provider's data as permitted by a warrant

The problem may lie in your mistaken belief that the phone company's data is "yours"

[sabrina 1]

303. There goes Michelle Bachman's false claim that MY records do not belong to ME. Wrong, and this

past week I proved it.

I have taken back my records from Verizon because they violated their own Privacy Agreement which I read to them on the phone. They had the nerve to tell me they had NOT shared MY RECORDS, note, they did not agree with Michelle Bachman, they agreed with ME, that those records are MINE. I refused to stay with them despite all their assurances that they respected MY privacy and their Privacy Agreement with ME.

So much for that Michelle Bachman talking point. At least she benefits from the lie, why anyone here is repeating it is beyond me.

Now Verizon doesn't have MY RECORDS anymore. Do you understand now, Michelle Bachman apparently doesn't, yet.

Now on to your claim that it is Constitutional for the Govenrment to obtain a MASS WARRANT on MIllions of people WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I did ask what probable cause was there of wrong doing on MY part that caused a Warrant to be issued to go anywhere near MY RECORDS.

They tried to convince me I was misunderstanding, that there was NO WARRANT, not an individual one, not a MASS ONE (show me where in the Constitution such a thing even exists) because they so didn't want a customer to take HER records OUT OF THEIR HANDS because they cannot be trusted with them.

So, YOU say there was some kind of new fangled Mass Warrant on millions of Americans. Verizon tells me no, there was NO WARRANT.

Since EVERYONE seems to be lying, I have taken MY RECORDS out of their hands. AND to avoid all the lies and talking points and excuses for these Bush Policies, I rely on the US Constitution as MY guide.

Several lawsuits have already been filed, with more coming. We'll see if Michelle Bachman is right about who owns those records or if the US Constitution and the Privacy Agreement WE signed with Verizon trumps that Brilliant Mind or not.

Am I still posting on DU btw?

I am going to have to copy and paste this because it is UNBELIEVABLE to see anyone here trying to defend BUSH Policies with Michelle Bachman talking points. Unbelievable.

[Recursion]

306. of course they still have your records

They belong to them, and they're humoring you

[sabrina 1]

307. Yes, they are desperately trying to humor all their customers now that the violated their own

Privacy Agreement with them, fearful as they should be, of millions of lawsuits. They had permission from their customers according to their agreement, for very limited use of them. They had ZERO right to hand over OUR records to anyone other than what was agreed upon in the agreement. They are now being sued, five major suits so far and they can expect many, many more.

Try to understand this. You are accepting the rantings of Michelle Bachman which is never a good idea. All records, medical, legal (with your attorney), bank, internet, phone, business, ANY records for which we PAY, belong to US with the acknowledgement that, only if it benefits THE CLIENT, or if there is some agreement other than that, can they be shared with anyone else. AND, according to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, the Government especially, has ZERO RIGHT to obtain them for any reason OTHER than, try to read this carefully, apparently Michelle Bachman doesn't approve of the US Constitution like her hero, George Bush:

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

PERSONS, Probable Cause of Wrong Doing. NOT CORPORATIONS. No 'MASS WARRANTS'. Ridiculous right wing talking point.

We know that Bush despised the US Constitution, we know because he said so.

The day that those rights are removed from the American people, and it is SHAMEFUL to see anyone on this forum ADVOCATING for that, will be the end of this Democracy. So we the people intend to do what Americans have done throughout their short history, FIGHT to preserve them from Mega Corps who are right now trying to remove them.

You go ahead and join those who are willing to give them up without a whisper, but expect the rest of us to do all we can to challenge the attempt to steal those hard-fought-for rights with everything we have.

[Recursion]

308. Every call had counterparties. you have no right

To erase the data of your call with them.

[sabrina 1]

309. It doesn't matter, they cannot use those records other than according to their agreement with

their customers. I'll take THEIR word over Michelle Bachman's thank you. They assured me that if I remained as a customer, they would abide by that agreement, acknowledging that to do otherwise would be MISUSING MY RECORDS. I don't trusts liars and betrayers so I told them 'no thank you'. Fool me once, etc.

Every transaction has counterparties. Your lawyer has your records, let him/her do what Verizon did and see what happens.

Your doctor has your records, let him/her do what Verizon did and see what happens.

Your Bank has your records, let them do what Verizon did and see what happens.

The only defense of this is to do what I actually saw, UNBELIEVABLY right here on DU recently, to outright slam the US Constitution. To dismiss it, to view it as 'a quaint old document'.

Granted we have nearly lost many of our rights due to the failed (from the people's pov, Republican War on Drugs and the Republican War on Terror, but fortunately not competely, YET.

I am sorry that there are actually people so willing to just hand them over. Not me, thank you. I appreciate those who died fighting for them and will continue to do what all of our Elected Officials and Military Personnel have SWORN to do, 'defend and protect the US Constitution from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic.

Btw did you believe this nonsense when Bush loyalists were spouting it, because it isn't a new argument, or do you trust OUR team with these awesome powers, but not the other team? I can't recall a single Democrat using this argument throughout the Bush years, I certainly argued with Bush supporters about it which is why I am so familiar with it, so I'm seriously curious as to when it began to surface on OUR side.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Greenwald bad, bad.

The anti Greenwald folks lost me when they wallowed in the homophobia pool so willingly way back when. I give his critics all the respect I give to others who use anti gay tropes to serve their agenda, such as Republicans.
That's just the way it is, Joe. Once I see a streak of bigotry like that, I reject and avoid the folks riding that trope. Forever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[GiaGiovanni]

191. It's amazing how people fall back on homophobia

It's just sad to see how some folks never evolve.

[GiaGiovanni]

101. Joe, do you have links on the actual substance of these warrants?

And when and how they were granted?

Thanks.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Only the trashers can definitively answer Question #1:

>>>Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald?>>>

I'm just spitballin' but I'd speculate it's largely because he's wicked-smart, brash, right about almost everything, critical of the abuses of the current administration and gay.

That's in "no particular order."

I'll watch the thread to see what develops from Q. #2.

[JoePhilly]

35. Its not about Grrenwald ... except when it is about Greenwald.

But it's not. Unless it is.

Today it is, tomorrow maybe not.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Because he is making the PTB and Dear Leader look bad.

Can't have the "image" smudged.

[think]

10. Booz Allen needs a good laugh to cheer them up....

[GiaGiovanni]

102. Booz Allen will have 35 different ACA (Obamacare) contracts

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/10/04/booz-allen-hamilton-wins-35-healthcare-contracts.aspx

With the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Consumer Information and Insurance Systems Group, Booz Allen won the $26 million Exchange Operational Integration Support contract to provide program and project management; strategic planning and analysis; communications; requirements development and analysis; business analysis; and architecture support.

With the National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services Department and the National Health Lung and Blood Institute, Booz Allen won an $18.5 million contract for information technology support services.

With the Navy, Marine Corps and Public Health Center, the company won a $16.8 million contract to provide resources in support of Navy medicine; specifically, the company will provide infrastructure personnel; materials; equipment; facilities; and science and technology that the company said will sustain an acceptable level of medical research.

With the Health and Human Services Department and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Booz Allen will fulfill the statutory and regulatory requirements of the quality rating system and quality improvement strategy of the ACA.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. They have attacked him long before the NSA/Snowden story broke, often using his

sexuality against him, there was a thread on DU in 2011 'I just found out Greenwald is gay, and so are some DUers'. Here is a sample:
"I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

I personally don't give much weight to anyone who supported the Iraq War, so Glenn has never been a favorite of mine, but anytime some group with an agenda goes after anyone using those anti gay tropes that group has my utter contempt and I will defend the person they are attempting to harm with ugly anti gay bullshit. And of course that crowd likes to lump in other gay people with him as if we all are in contact and share the same beliefs. Hugely bigoted crapola worthy of the Republicans.

[msanthrope]

40. A single poster since banned for his views is not "attacks.". Greenwald deserves scorn

for his hypocrisy in wiretapping Witnesses......


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[Bluenorthwest]

42. That was just the worst, not the only attack. The question was 'why the trashing'

and the trashing has gone on for years prior to this dust up. There were many, many posters citing their support for that OP and it had many, many recs. Most of those who reccced it are still here and some are right here in this thread, trashing away.

I just edited out material that was intended for another poster, I confused the two of you due to the mutual excuses offered for the homophobic nature of the attacks on this individual.

[msanthrope]

77. If you think particular posters are homophobic, I think you should use the jury system and other

tools available to you.

Why not say what you mean, precisely?

[GiaGiovanni]

103. So you think homophobia is playing a part here?

I'm just trying to understand why it's so visceral and why people feel the need to put up post after post about him.

[pnwmom]

14. He's a grandstanding self-promoter who made a big splash

by exaggerating what the powerpoint presentation said. What it actually said -- that we were collecting metadata -- had been discussed openly by Congress several years ago as part of the Patriot Act. It wasn't some big scoop -- anyone who was paying attention to the debate then already knew.

His lie was that initially he claimed we were collecting more than metadata on all Americans without getting warrants.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. How do you explain the homophobic attacks on him back in 2011?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[pnwmom]

27. There's no excuse for them and no connection to this issue.

Some people are homophobes and they don't belong here spreading that manure.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. The OP 'issue': Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald?

You claimed it is about the NSA, but as I pointed out the attacks have been going on for YEARS and have often been heinous in nature and in content. Long before Snowden, folks were attacking Greenwald.
So yeah, there is a connection between 'Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald?' and the fact that the trashing has gone on for years prior to the current debate and that those doing the trashing have used seriously vicious and bigoted tropes in their attacks.
To declare there is no connection between the question the OP asks and the history of the trashing the OP asks about is absurd.
The trashing predates NSA/Snowden. By years. That is a very valid point even if it makes the anti Greenwald set uncomfortable. That thread was allowed to stand for about a week, hosts did nothing. Many DUers chimed in with their support. In 2011. But it is all about NSA? Were those folks psychic? Seeing the future?

[pnwmom]

92. Probably because Greenwald has been trashing Obama since Obama first took office.

While he accepts money for articles that have appeared on CATO and The American Conservative.

[truedelphi]

152. However, Mr Snowden actually held off on

His leaks, as he thought that Obama deserved a chance. When it became clear over four and a half years of Obama's One Percent Favoring Policies, that Obama and his appointments are to the middle class as wolves are to sheep, he released the material to Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian.

[pnwmom]

158. You forgot about the documents he shared

with the Chinese newspaper.

When he started releasing information about our spying agencies spying on other countries -- which we expect them to do -- that's when he crossed the line, IMO.

[truedelphi]

170. You are repeating propaganda from our MIC and its tightly controlled media -

However, there are many links that state that Snowden DID NOT offer any foreign governments a thing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/report-snowden-didn-give-russia-information-article-1.1394826

There are about two hundred similar links to that. What Snowden did was to give the information to The Guardian, via Greenwald. And Greenwald vetted it.

However her eminence, teh most corrupted lady of the Senate, Di Feinstein is now smearing Snowden.Please note: All she can do is suggest that Snowden has given info to foreign governments - she has no proof. Here is a very recent link to her suggesting dirt about Snowden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/28/feinstein-suggests-snowden-might-have-given-info-to-china-russia/
Why is she into smearing Snowden?

BECAUSE her Eminence, the Head Dragon Lady of Insider Washington DC Senate wheeling and dealing loves those lucrative contracts - including the Surveillance Contracts. This woman is a NeoCon, though she has been clever enough to paste a "D" after name. She doesn't deserve that "D" - she is anti-union, pro-war, and pro-corruption (as long as that corruption pays off personally for her and her spouse.

Going back over two decades, these are the lucrative deals that Di Fi's connections to City Hall in San Francisco, and then her Senate connections , have allowed her husband to benefit from:

1) A contract involving Blum's construction firm, to do the expansion of the San Francisco International Airport. (Circa the early 1990's.) There were cost over runs of close to or slightly surpassing one billion dollars, paid for by the government. Richard loved that deal!

2) After offering up a "Yea" vote on the Iraq War Resoloution, Di F helped Blum secure contracts that paid off very well - and that p0aid off almost immeidately. Within six months of our being in Iraq, she and he ahd an extra 27 millions of dollars to their name. Too bad if we lost over 6,000 of our service people to that war. too bad if those war efforts will end up costing us over three trillions of dollars. (Hey, the politicians can re-imburse the Treasury by getting our Social Security monies, can't they!

3) In total, over the ten years that the USA was fighting in Iraq, Richard Blum and his various businesses got over 750 million dollars of very sweet deals.

4) Realizing that eventually the war in Iraq would wind down, by 2006, she and sweetie pie Blum were moving into Surveillance Contracts. If she and Richie Snookums could get all the money they get from a ten year war - what will they garner in terms of profits from an on going, perpetual war against citizens of the USA? How many billions are they planning on from those deals?

[pnwmom]

176. No, he's relying on people like you to not understand that he's making a false distinction

between sharing information with the Chinese newspaper -- which he did -- and the Chinese and Russian "authorities," which he claimed not to do.

But there is no bright line between the Chinese newspaper and the Chinese authorities. Everything he shared with the newspaper he also shared with the government.

[truedelphi]

189. What some media states that Snowden gave to the Chinese newspapers

Is this:

A separate story seems to be unfolding, after Snowden shared classified records with the South China Morning Post that divulged the IP addresses of computers in Hong Kong and mainland China that were allegedly hacked by the NSA.

However Snwoden has denied that he gave the Chinese newspapers anything. Instead, his story is that his computers were hacked.

[pnwmom]

190. Now he is claiming that his computers were hacked? What did he expect

when he brought 4 laptops into China and Russia?

It is common knowledge among business and university travelers that any laptop brought into those countries might be hacked. That's one of the reasons he never should have gone there with the laptops -- assuming he wasn't involved with them from the beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/technology/electronic-security-a-worry-in-an-age-of-digital-espionage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“If a company has significant intellectual property that the Chinese and Russians are interested in, and you go over there with mobile devices, your devices will get penetrated,” said Joel F. Brenner, formerly the top counterintelligence official in the office of the director of national intelligence.

Theft of trade secrets was long the work of insiders — corporate moles or disgruntled employees. But it has become easier to steal information remotely because of the Internet, the proliferation of smartphones and the inclination of employees to plug their personal devices into workplace networks and cart proprietary information around. Hackers’ preferred modus operandi, security experts say, is to break into employees’ portable devices and leapfrog into employers’ networks — stealing secrets while leaving nary a trace.

Targets of hack attacks are reluctant to discuss them and statistics are scarce. Most breaches go unreported, security experts say, because corporate victims fear what disclosure might mean for their stock price, or because those affected never knew they were hacked in the first place. But the scope of the problem is illustrated by an incident at the United States Chamber of Commerce in 2010.

The chamber did not learn that it — and its member organizations — were the victims of a cybertheft that had lasted for months until the Federal Bureau of Investigation told the group that servers in China were stealing information from four of its Asia policy experts, who frequent China. By the time the chamber secured its network, hackers had pilfered at least six weeks worth of e-mails with its member organizations, which include most of the nation’s largest corporations. Later still, the chamber discovered that its office printer and even a thermostat in one of its corporate apartments were still communicating with an Internet address in China.

SNIP

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-01/opinions/40297899_1_intelligence-nsa-u-s-defense-department

Think that China failed to access every single one of the files on Snowden’s computers during his month-long stay in Hong Kong before letting him escape to Russia? Not a chance. Snowden publicly confirmed that he possessed top-secret intelligence on America’s espionage against China. Beijing was not letting him leave without getting every last byte of it.

Even if Snowden did not intentionally cooperate, the People’s Liberation Army has one of the most sophisticated cyber-hacking operations in the world. PLA hackers have broken into U.S. Defense Department computers and stolen the designs for more than two dozen major weapons systems. Think they can’t hack four laptops sitting in a hotel room in sovereign Chinese territory? Whatever Snowden had in his possession when he entered Hong Kong is now in the possession of Chinese intelligence.

[GiaGiovanni]

206. How do you know who did the hacking?

I understand that both newspapers are suggesting it, but there is no proof yet.

[pnwmom]

212. I don't know, but it's not really relevant WHO did it, assuming it was done.

Snowden was the one who shared the data, whether on purpose or through recklessness, by taking it into China and Russia.

[GiaGiovanni]

216. So we don't know that it was done at all, and we don't know who if anyone

did...well, anything.

That's not a lot to go on.

[pnwmom]

220. You're right. We could assume Snowden is lying when he says he was hacked.

But he's not denying the truth of what the Chinese newspapers reported -- he's just saying that he didn't voluntarily share the documents with the IP addresses, so he must have been hacked.

[GiaGiovanni]

221. We can't assume anything really. We just don't know.

Did the Chinese actually say they hacked his computers? (I don't keep up with Chinese news normally.)

[pnwmom]

222. No, the previous poster in this thread claimed that Snowden says he was hacked.

I have no idea whether that is true, but there is no doubt about what the Chinese newspaper printed. So the only question is whether the Chinese got the information through hacking or whether Snowden voluntarily shared it with them.

[GiaGiovanni]

226. Or the Chinese got the information from some other source

I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate here. It's just that the Chinese do a lot of hacking (as do other foreign governments) and this information could have come up somewhere else.

[pnwmom]

229. But Snowden supposedly thinks they hacked him.

If that's true, then presumably he thinks he had the information and that it was hackable.

[GiaGiovanni]

233. Snowden might not know who hacked him, or if anyone did

It's hard to really understand what is going on. I do hope it gets cleared up. It worries me that American information can be hacked under these kinds of circumstances. Remember that Booz Allen has 35 contracts related to the ACA, which means that our personal health information could, in the future, also be hacked under circumstances like these. That's why I'd like to know the exact facts. If the Chinese or Russians did hack him, then I can spend a bunch of sleepless weeks worried about my information, but, until then, I want my 8 hours at night.

[pnwmom]

234. I've always believed that nothing I put online is secure.

So I don't do my banking there, and I'm not thrilled about my doctors moving their records online.

My sister works for a major bank and even she doesn't do banking from her home computer. The only online banking she does is from her work computer in the bank's own system.

[GiaGiovanni]

245. The problem is where are all being forced to do everything online

My utilities and other bills keep wanting me to "save trees" and "go paperless". I have resisted this, but there will be a time when paper is no longer possible. They are already squeezing the post office.

[Egnever]

263. Why would you resist that?

I don't get it.

What do you fear from paying your bills online? The information is there to be had whether you do it online or through the mail. You might as well save some trees and get a little personal convenience to boot.

[GiaGiovanni]

271. I want control over when and how my money leaves my account

No one gets my bank number or access to my account. Too many employees at too many places can do mischief.

Much paper is now recycled.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. People supporting that thread are right here in this thread, trashing away.

You say 'Some people are homophobes and they don't belong here spreading that manure.'
But they are right here spreading it along side you today. Do you think they should not be here?

[pnwmom]

93. I'm not going to read every thread looking for whoever you're talking about.

But if someone here is spreading homophobia, you should alert.

[RetroLounge]

260. Just read that thread and read this one.

Same people.

RL

[GiaGiovanni]

104. Did you know how much was being collected on you several years ago?

I'm just curious because I didn't. I had a vague notion of NSA checking for terrorist calls originating or connecting to a US phone, but I did not realize that my call to the doctor or my order for vitamins at Amazon was being tracked, even though I had done nothing wrong.

[The Straight Story]

19. I think because he was not properly licking some boots

[Avalux]

25. Greenwald is an opportunist, not a journalist.

That's the problem here. Yes, the basics in your post are true, but is everything else he says?

I have a difficult time trusting his judgement and ability to deliver a story based upon fact instead of his own personal agenda (which is all over the place). He doesn't vote, and supported the Iraq War and enactment of the Patriot Act.

An excerpt from his book, How Would A Patriot Act?:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812


Greenwald has zero credibility.

[otohara]

64. What You Said

and what he wrote = opportunist with an agenda.

[GiaGiovanni]

105. You have this opinion because he once felt he should support Dubya after 9/11?

Am I getting that right?

[Avalux]

163. I don't form an opinion from one fuck up.

There are many of them from Greenwald. If you don't know, look them up.

[GiaGiovanni]

183. There was a post last night with a whole list, but these were apparently lies

I'll go find the thread.

[last1standing]

135. You use out of context quotes but Greenwald is the opportunist?

Physician, heal thyself!

[Avalux]

164. If I was an opportunist, I'd be in the headlines like Greenwald. n/t

[last1standing]

165. I'm sure you have a tremendous amount of talent in journalism...

and it is only your high ethical standard that keeps you from the headlines.

[laundry_queen]

288. .

[reusrename]

172. I think there is a difference between what a journalist does and what an author does.

Sure, he has his biases. If he came across a story that really disparaged Snowden he probably wouldn't report it. He gets to choose what he believes is newsworthy, what it is he wants to inform people about.

Throwing the kitchen sink at him, especially when his reporting on this (and other) issues has been accurate all along, just doesn't make any sense, whether you like his politics or not.

OTOH, when he writes a passage about himself in his book, what difference does it make if he gets his opinion wrong?

[Avalux]

179. We don't know what he'd do, that's the point.

Those who are elevating Greenwald as some sort of ethical/moral defender of our rights are foolish. There is no disputing that he has reported facts; those facts weren't really secret though - anyone paying attention since Bushco rammed through the Patriot Act knew what was going on. Greenwald should have too, instead he supported it.

This alone makes me suspect his motivations; his writings are suspect based upon his history.

[Recursion]

293. Opportunists can still be journalists. Greenwald is definitely a journalist

Just not a very good one. But the first amendment protects sloppy journalists too.

[treestar]

26. Is no one allowed to disagree with him?

He is not a reporter, but an editorial writer. We don't have to agree with his opinions.

[GiaGiovanni]

107. I assume that's a rhetorical question

Because it doesn't really relate to the OP and the question involved in it. There is no issue with disagreeing, especially if done in a logical way with some evidence. But what the OP is directly addressing is the emotional posts trashing Greenwald and wondering why they exist.

[RetroLounge]

261. "He is not a reporter"

because you say so?





RL

[treestar]

268. I can tell the difference between a news story and an editorial

He includes his opinions.

[RetroLounge]

269. Yeah, okay.

RL

[MjolnirTime]

29. He's a complete douchebag and attention whore. Is that reason enough?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

52. you know this how?

or are you still making stuff up?

[GiaGiovanni]

108. Do you have links that support your opinion?

I am curious to see what you mean by douchebag.

[HangOnKids]

116. Gee I thought looking at the profile of the poster might give an answer

But they have 13 hidden posts and I just couldn't help but cracking up!

[randome]

30. Because neither he nor Snowden have shown that the NSA is doing anything illegal.

Greenwald wants to trash whatever gets him the most attention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[GiaGiovanni]

109. What kind of evidence would convince you that the NSA was in fact doing something illegal?

What would you be looking for in the way of proof that doesn't currently exist?

Thanks.

[randome]

119. How would I know what kind of proof to look for?

Maybe there IS no proof because the NSA is conducting itself in a legal manner.

All S&G give us is vague claims and PowerPoint slides. I can't get worked up about that. Maybe there's a pill that would help?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[GiaGiovanni]

120. It might help to look up various legal interpretations of the 4th amendment

The 4th amendment seems to be the sticking point here. Is there an interpretation by recognized legal scholars (and not political cronies) that supports what NSA is doing?

I think that would be a good place to start.

[treestar]

128. Any attempts to discuss the Fourth Amendment here

are rejected with emotionalist BS as soon as it gets past quoting it.

It has been established many times, and one poster found cases on the NSA, no one will talk about it at all.

Because it muddies the waters and shows that the NSA can do things it has a warrant for, under the law. No one on the Snowden side wants that to be so, so they distract and disrupt.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

stevenleser posted links to that weeks ago, and I have linked it many times. No takers. They just want to scream "spying on Americans!"

[GiaGiovanni]

130. So NSA went to the FISA court and asked for a blanket warrant on all Americans?

I am reading through the court opinion now. Just want to make sure I am understanding it correctly.

[treestar]

132. This is exactly what they do

Misinterpret deliberately to find something sinister.

[GiaGiovanni]

133. Then explain where I got it wrong

Remember, I am just getting through this case of Irish buying weaponry.

[randome]

137. Metadata phone records are not part of your personal effects.

Therefore, 4th Amendment protections do not apply.

And as treestar pointed out, even if they did apply, a legal warrant trumps those protections. It has always been that way.

If you simply don't want metadata records to be available, that's fine, but the NSA is violating no law by getting copies of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[GiaGiovanni]

140. The phone records are considered to be property of telecoms, not the person who makes the call

But perhaps that is the core of the issue. We need different laws on personal data, especially since, to operate in the world, we are often forced to give our personal data to corporations.

The law should be addressing this but it's not.

[randome]

141. No problem changing the law here.

But we should also learn -in real statistics- whether this process has tangible benefits, not the nebulous, parsable statistics that have been so far released.

More transparency, less secrecy all around, that's what we need. If the data is actually valuable, I say keep it. If it's not, or even if it has a bare minimum of value, I say drop it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[GiaGiovanni]

145. You and I will vehemently disagree here.

"Tangible benefits" is never an excuse to demolish someone's normal, day to day expectation of privacy.

When we are on the phone, we assume who we are calling is a private matter, unless (as some do) we shout into our cell phones in line at Starbucks. I don't think people realized that the knowledge of what number they were calling (and whom) implied zero expectation of privacy. Since courts typically had to obtain a warrant (with probable cause) to get phone records, we did have some expectation of privacy unless a cop or prosecutor had reason to believe we had committed a crime. NSA has just blown that popular understanding out of the water.

One more thing: with the new technologies, including street lights with microphones, cameras & computers (see 1:20) and even our appliances, the assumption of corporations and government is that we have NO expectation of privacy, even in our own homes. That's not about national security and one cannot talk about the "tangible" benefits of a corporation or government knowing whether we watch HBO in the kitchen or the bedroom.

Somewhere along the line, we need to develop new laws to preserve the expectation of privacy--in our homes, our front lawns, on the phone--despite the technology.

[Egnever]

265. "When we are on the phone, we assume who we are calling is a private matter"

You know what they say about ASSuming.

The fact that you think that those things aren't logged is where you go off the rails. If in fact you realize they are logged what in the world makes you think they are private? Any bozo that works at sprint or whatever company can pull up those logs. You call that private? Whats private is the conversation that goes on in those calls not the origin and destination of the calls.

If you expect anything else you are, and have been fooling yourself for a long time.

I wholeheartedly agree we need to revisit many of our privacy laws with an eye to changes our emerging technologies are having on it. Having said that I am a huge fan of tech and love the things that are developing. I am not afraid of it I embrace it. I also realize that by getting all of these convenience I am giving up portions of my privacy. I accept it and am willing to make that trade off.

If you don't want this info out there unplug your modem now. Tech is not going away and the things that are coming online are amazing. You certainly don't have to participate if you feel it is too much privacy loss for you.

[treestar]

114. Yes! He does plenty of "trashing!"

It's outrageous that we are expected only to praise him for it!

He seems like the most negative person.

[GiaGiovanni]

123. Links and evidence please.

Thank you.

[villager]

39. In a dysfunctional family system, there is usually a lot of rage aimed at those

...who can point out the dysfunction and deception.

This is just that, writ large.

[laundry_queen]

289. B. I. N. G. O.

The ones who point out the dysfunction are often ridiculed, bullied, and ganged up on. The dysfunctional family gathers what can be called 'flying monkeys' or other people that can contact the 'whistleblower' of the family and try to manipulate them into returning to the dysfunction and taking back their statements about the family. If that fails, they spread lies about that person to try to bring them down, so they are effectively seen as 'crazy' so they are no longer credible. It is a vicious series of attacks when that happens. And the dysfunctional family circles the wagons around the remaining (loyal) members.

Those of us who have lived in these kinds of families understand the dynamic, and it is almost happening text-book style here. It's sad to see.

[villager]

295. very textbook indeed, Laundry Queen

especially when you add in the sneering, snark, etc., that accompanies the attacks...

It's "Lord of the Flies," DU-style....

[msanthrope]

41. He's a hypocrite....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[L0oniX]

49. Well if he is then he is in good company with this fucking country and government. n/t

[GiaGiovanni]

127. Interesting. Thank you.

Was this common knowledge and was this why people were trashing him on DU?

[msanthrope]

134. You are quite welcome. I cannot speak to other people's knowledge, but his racist postings

on immigration caught my eye long ago....



http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/04/glenn-greenwald-on-civil-liberties.html

[GiaGiovanni]

138. I don't actually care about his opinions on other matters

But I do care if he was breaking the law while a member of the legal community.

Thanks!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Because he's making it clear that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is neither.

[L0oniX]

48. It's a nonsense agenda. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Sock-puppetry, probably.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

53. Because he's a gadfly. People tend to dislike gadflies

He's oppositional merely for the sake of being oppositional as a way to protect his brand. The guy is about getting attention and making money. Hey, if the truth and objectivity are casualties then so be it.

[bobduca]

181. Mind Reading for fun and profit!

(where profit is defined as helps you smear GG)

[cantbeserious]

55. Character Assassination - If The Message Is Disturbing - Shoot The Messenger

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. It is not what he said

Which is true...is that he broke omerta He did indeed break a code of silenxe

[OregonBlue]

66. Greenwald doesn't do anything that doesn't help Greenwals. He's a grandstanding little putz.

He has no actual core beliefs since they seem to change depending on what angle he is pushing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. "He was mean to my boyfriend and makes him look bad!"

and I'm pretty sure he turned someone into a newt as well...
& R

[The Link]

70. Some of it is because he is gay.

[msanthrope]

76. Homophobia is against the TOS. If you think a particular poster is being homophobic, I encourage

you to use the jury system and other tools available to you.

[GiaGiovanni]

110. So you think homophobia is playing a part in this?

Has there been any evidence of that?

[backscatter712]

174. The various posters that thought it was cute to call him "Geegee". n/t

[GiaGiovanni]

182. Ah. So it's there

I can see how that would play a part.

[Egnever]

266. He is gay?

[Iggo]

73. Kill the messenger, kill the message.

[Fumesucker]

75. Fascinating thread

It's like we're talking about two entirely different people.

And the division is so predictable, all or at least most of the usual suspects.

[GiaGiovanni]

111. It's actually interesting to see how widely people diverge

I really just wanted to know why.

[Marrah_G]

162. It boils down to this

If you are critical of the path Obama has been taking then you probably like what Greenwald is doing.

If you think Obama is doing everything right then you probably hate what Greenwald is doing.

In fact, that is where the divide comes down to on almost every issue on DU. The critics versus that cheerleaders. Then you have a lot of people in between who try to dodge the bullets being shot from either side.

Full disclosure: I am a critic.

[GiaGiovanni]

184. I haven't been around long enough to isolate both groups

But it's nice to know what to look for. I personally think Obama has carried on Bush's War on Terror with no intent of actually stopping it.

[railsback]

83. There's always pushback against an activist embellishing his 'cause'.

..and when he starts ad hominem attacks against those naturally skeptical skeptics, who prefer to have all the facts before making judgements.

[GiaGiovanni]

112. So Greenwald has attacked skeptics. Do you have links?

Sorry if I seem to be out of the loop here.

[felix_numinous]

84. People are trashing Greenwald

because they trust the authority that the NSA has assumed in their interpretation of the 4th amendment. These people cannot or do not wish to understand how this authority could possibly be abused, while many other Americans disagree.

There are many people who are much more authoritarian than others, they have no problem delegating power to institutions and want badly to trust these organizations. But it seems they have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing blatant abuse and corruption when it is obvious to others (and the rest of the world....).

The burden of proof in an equation between the citizenry and the government lies with those with the most power and influence--IN EXCHANGE for the responsibilities given to them to run the country, make us safer, and draft laws--they must prove their will and ability to SELF GOVERN against abuse and corruption. THE BURDEN OF PROOF of legality and morality LIES WITH THE GOVERNMENT, NOT WITH THE CITIZENRY.

Giving authority to a surveillance state is giving our power away to them. It is a breach of trust--because WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

[GiaGiovanni]

113. So it's basically a disagreement over the interpretation of the 4th amendment

I enjoyed your post and it is giving me some insight.

Bill Binney was on Coast to Coast last night. John B. Wells interviews him pretty well (considering how odd that show can get). Binney came across sounding like many career government people I have known.

[treestar]

115. OH BS

We can look at an accusation that government is overstepping and in some cases, find that it's not, or that there is not yet any proof that it is.

The standard that if Greenwald says there is something wrong, there must be, is senseless. And that's the kind of authoritarian lock step being demanded of us.

[intaglio]

89. Because he is a poor journalist

Who did not research article he wrote based on the actions of a self-publicising traitor and then tried to up the ante by posting nonsensical assertions about possible assassination.

Echelon has been know publicly for 25 years, Prism for about 10, the public availability of metadata on the internet is part of its design, the metadata about phone calls has been legally examined since Smith v Maryland, and FISC being pretty much a rubber stamp has been known since it first sat.

But of course putting that in your article doesn't make it sell ...

[GiaGiovanni]

118. You know, I didn't know about Eschelon until 10 years ago when I went on an odd little site

on the internet and started researching from there.

In other words, while Eschalon and Prism may have been known in some quarters, they were not known by most people in the US, and that was by design. If Americans had known about Eschalon, for example, they would have definitely protested it as an abuse of spy powers. And I'm sorry, but most educated people I know had no clue about Prism either.

And most people I know don't have a clue that Booz Allen is going to be in charge of much of the tech for the ACA (Obamacare).

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/10/04/booz-allen-hamilton-wins-35-healthcare-contracts.aspx

Booz Allen: The World's Most Profitable Spy Organization

In other words, the defense contractor that makes the most money from spying will be dealing with the information in our medical records. How many Americans do you think know this? And yet, if a journalist writes an article 10 years from now demonstrating that Booz Allen is mishandling healthcare data, would you call that person a bad journalist for acting as if the connection between Booz Allen and ACA is news to most Americans, even though it is technically known?

[Bragi]

90. The reason? It's an organised campaign, that's why

The goal is to discredit GG and his revelations, and in doing so, to reassure people that mass surveillance is nothing new, and is their friend.

I'm unclear as yet as to who exactly is mounting this campaign on DU and why. I think it's possible that it uses paid-for online persona set up by one or more various intelligence agencies.

[LWolf]

91. He makes some main-stream elected Democrats look bad. nt

[bemildred]

95. Fear and Loathing. nt

[Coyotl]

97. Why do you assume anything he says is a lie?

[Rex]

117. The moderate-right wing of the party hates lefties.

It doesn't have anything to do with the person, just if they are left of Reagan then they get mocked.

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. because he keeps pursuing this loony idea that if something is wrong when the Republicans do it

then its also wrong when the Democrats do it. Now, just how does that make any sense all?

[backscatter712]

148. Authoritarian "Democrats" reflexively attacking anyone undermining the surveillance state. n/t

[sabrina 1]

149. Fear! Truth tellers always get this response. All the more reason to support him.

[truedelphi]

153. Orwell said that this way:

"The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."

[sabrina 1]

156. Yes, very well put by Orwell. But he could not in his wildest predictions,, have predicted how

far things would go in this country. We now have supposed Democrats supporting the 'Surveillance State'.

[eilen]

177. Didn't he also say-

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

So yeah, Greenwald gives the finger at PR for BO. That is why they hate him- and everyone else that has the nerve to point out the neoliberalism the president and his peeps are pushing.

[truedelphi]

188. Oh, I like that quote. Don't

Know if I have heard it before, so much appreciated.

[GiaGiovanni]

207. That needs to be on my car

I'm looking for the bumper sticker.

[Aerows]

150. It isn't President Barack Obama that said it

that is pretty much enough for many, because it certainly isn't because they are Democrats. Democrats take their thumps here, too, if they aren't President Barack Obama. I'd venture to say if Joe Biden said something that didn't praise Barack Obama, he'd be given a verbal talking to, and all around bashing by many DU members.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. because pesky libertarian do-gooders are going to stop the government from keeping! us! safe!

the government needs to be able to trash the constitution to be able to incarcerate cancer patients for smoking pot, otherwise the terrorists win.

[Th1onein]

160. Please understand: If they make it about Greenwald, then we won't pay attention to the spying!

See how that works? THAT'S why you're seeing all of the posts about Snowden and Greenwald here. Make note of who is posting these missives--the same people, over and over and over again.

[GiaGiovanni]

215. Why would anyone on DU not be concerned about the NSA?

It's chilling to any thinking person.

[Th1onein]

223. You got me. I don't know.

It's the height of stupidity, but there it is.

Read the posts; you'll see for yourself.

"It's legal." (Whether this is true or not does NOT matter, except that it's not true.)
"It's nothing new." (Yes, it is.)
"It's only metadata." (No, it's not.)

[GiaGiovanni]

225. It's also legal for cops to taser people

But there have been lots of complaints about that. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right morally or for society.

[Th1onein]

231. THAT'S what I'm saying. I couldn't agree with you more.

What Hitler did was "legal," too. But that does not make it less reprehensible.

[GiaGiovanni]

232. Now, how do we get people to understand that?

Without there being an emotional sharknado?

[Th1onein]

238. I don't think we do need to get them to understand. I think they already do.

And most who are posting the drivel that they are posting about these programs are probably paid to do so. Either that, or they are "true believers," who will follow like sheep.

[GiaGiovanni]

246. You think the NSA sends trolls in here?

?

[Th1onein]

267. They are recording and storing every piece of info you send or search for on the net

It would be pretty naïve to think that they wouldn't send trolls in, don't you think?

[GiaGiovanni]

270. Yeah, I guess

*sigh*

[Skip Intro]

161. He helped Snowden "make Obama look bad" - ?

[Cha]

249. No, they wanted to.. but ended up making themselves look like

idiots.

[kenny blankenship]

166. The reason is that they are pathetic losers with no lives

who think that if they repeat, over and over, the same moronic bullshit and smears that would make Joe McCarthy blush they can get people to forget that Obama is violating the Constitution. Because that's all that matters to them. Not the rule of law, not policies, not the people who are represented by the party, nope - it's all about just one guy, who as it happens, really sucks at his job. That's all they care about.



It's all for you!

[Scurrilous]

187. "...it's all about just one guy."

Yep. To the Obama bashers it's all about one guy. 24/7 "I blame Obama."

Oh wait...who were we talking about?

[Kablooie]

169. There are official NSA sponsored trolls that have joined the conversation in the last month.

[backscatter712]

173. They don't work for the NSA...

...they hire contracting firms like HBGary to do that.

[GiaGiovanni]

192. Have joined DU?

How would anyone be able to tell that?

[Kablooie]

194. There are some posters who joined in the last month and post almost exclusively...

Snowden, Greenwald articles and throw in comments trying to discredit them.
This smells like an HR Gary troll to me.

(The HR Gary security company was exposed by anonymous a couple of years ago for emails talking about how they have staff that go to discussion web sites and post messages that support their clients views.)

[GiaGiovanni]

195. Wow. It's quite a sophisticated operation.

I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[dipsydoodle]

219. Yes - noticeable

[ecstatic]

198. a lot of it has to do with his fans, I think

Most of his fans are angry, hateful individuals and that makes Greenwald guilty by association. I'm barely familiar with the guy but I'm absolutely sick of seeing the glowing reviews of everything he states/writes. He's not a messiah, he's human like everyone else. But it's not just the fans--a lot of Greenwald's material comes across as disingenuous and even desperate. Add that to the bits and pieces I'm hearing about him being a pro-Bush repug shortly before becoming a so called leftie (just in time for Obama's term)... A little suspect, if you ask me.

I don't know if this post will be interpreted as trashing, but to me it's common sense that you don't use a pro-Bush repug as the vessel to attack democrats who are fighting to keep the tea party from completely destroying this country. I prefer CREDIBLE messengers to keep the discussion at a certain level. I saw another thread mentioning Howard Dean's critique of the ACA. Articles like that can lead to a meaningful conversation, as we all have a good idea of where Dr. Dean is coming from and there's a certain level of trust there.

[GiaGiovanni]

208. I don't know anything about his fans

And what you have stated is just opinion without factual backup. So I'll acknowledge your opinion and thank you for it, but register it only as an opinion.

[randome]

230. And nothing that S&G stole and printed points to illegality or abuse by the NSA.

Granted, they could be doing all sorts of nefarious things but unless we see evidence of it, I don't understand the level of outrage directed at them.

I guess it's because the NSA could be doing something nefarious and it's always easier to be afraid of monsters under the bed rather than the real monsters in the street.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

237. Greenwald could be more properly described as "pro government" rather than "pro Bush"

At least in the time period you are referring to, around 2003 or so. From 2005 on Greenwald was definitely anti Smirk and wrote many pieces about civil rights abuses during the latter part of the Cheney regency. I know this for a fact because I was one of his readers at Unclaimed Territory starting in early 2006.

[OregonBlue]

227. You might start by reading the endless other threads that have been posted in the last month.

I believe this has been asked and answered. Repeatedly!!

[GiaGiovanni]

228. Too much vitriol on those to read for long

I wanted a logical answer, not rapid posturing on any side.

[OregonBlue]

240. It mostly has to do with the fact that Greenwald is a nasty arrogant jerk. He's a Libertarian

asshole and actually quite right-wing. He always seems to be able to make the story all about Glen Greenwald. Because of that, many people don't read him. He often gets his facts wrong and when the truth comes out he plays the victim.

[Life Long Dem]

243. +1

[delrem]

235. I started reading threads after this OP

And my mind is blown.
People are actually stating that the entire population of the USA can be encompassed by one warrant, so it's justified to collect the entire history of every US citizen in a database.

And these jerks suggest that as good reason for trashing Glen Greenwald.

whew. DU isn't what it once was.

[GiaGiovanni]

248. I think there is a fuzziness in FISA too

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Early 1980s: FBI Encounters Problems Passing Intelligence Information to Criminal Prosecutors, ‘Wall’ Arises
Edit event

Due to apparent problems with the use of intelligence information in criminal proceedings, a set of procedures that later becomes known as the “wall” begins to take shape. The FBI, which performs both criminal and counterintelligence functions, normally obtains two types of warrants: criminal warrants and warrants under the recently passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA warrants are thought to be easier to obtain, as the FBI only has to show that there is probable cause to believe the subject is a foreign power or an agent of one.

Sometimes a case begins as an intelligence investigation, but results in a criminal prosecution. In court the defense can then argue that the government has abused FISA and obtained evidence by improperly using the lower standard, so any evidence obtained under FISA should not be allowed in court.

Although the government can use information it happens to obtain under a FISA warrant for a criminal prosecution, if the purpose of obtaining information under a FISA warrant is for a criminal prosecution, this is in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches. To combat this apparent problem, the special FISA Court decides that for a warrant under FISA to be granted, collecting intelligence information must be the primary purpose, although such information can be used in a criminal investigation provided the criminal investigation does not become the primary purpose of the surveillance or search.

As a result of these procedures, when the FBI is conducting an intelligence investigation and uncovers evidence of criminal activity, it no longer consults local United States Attorneys’ Offices, but prosecutors within the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The prosecutors then decide when the local attorney’s office should become involved. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 21-24 pdf file] The wall will be extended in the 1990s (see July 19, 1995) and will be much criticized before and after 9/11 (see July 1999 and April 13, 2004).

[delrem]

254. Excessive secrecy mixed with dubious ill-founded semantics is creepy.

We don't talk about law, or even secret laws, we talk about secret interpretations of law.
We see excruciatingly ugly semantics trying to explain such a travesty.

Without Snowden's leaks, Manning's leaks, we'd have nothing to counter outright lies of the highest order. Whether the lies are more/less than the lies of Bush isn't in question because there's a seamlessness to them.

I see James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence for the USA, caught in a lie to congress, to the people of the USA via congress -- and the lie has to do with whether or not the NSA respects the fundamental freedoms that define the USA. Then immediately I see James Clapper walk away free, to continue his job. I see congress-people as they listen to the lies, are told of the lies, and who then stand up and applaud Clapper before the country while condemning Snowden -- not once acknowledging the lies that Snowden exposed. Instead, puffing their chests and talking about how the US is the home of justice and freedom, how Russia is not, and how Russia is somehow guilty of a crime against universal morality for not delivering Snowden into their blood-stained hands.

____________
HBGary has been proven to be marketing disinformation campaigns against the world public, the world citizenry, by offering to use their software to go online and infiltrate social media, forums, "comment is free" comments sections allowed by online media etc. To be sure, astroturf is as old as astroturf and we're all aware of it. But we aren't all aware of the clients that HBGary works for, and the type of program they offer, nor which victims they propose as obvious examples. Examples like Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald isn't the only target. Oh no. In fact many of the best unembedded journalists of the Iraq war seem to have vanished -- so we have the ubiquitous presence of embedded stooges performing in costumes before green screens, reporting handed down drivel. I won't name names...

This is a market where HBGary is bidding for $billions$, or rather 100's of $billions$ in potential gov't "WoT" contracts. The $$ the "free world" is spending on the 21st century "war on terror" is unprecedented - it is by far the #1 global enterprise. Compare the GNP of Afghanistan with what is spent on destroying it. Do a comparison between what the US spends on WoT, and what it spends on upkeep to its existing infrastructure, on building new, better and life enhancing infrastructure.

There's big money, big rewards, for playing to the WoT. The script is already written for it so to play along requires that one only work out everyday so one can have a commanding presence while delivering the lines, while not even having to think about what they mean. And collecting big $$, very big $$. Enough to retire on. No chance of that feedback loop being intruded upon by ... fact. By a different point of view enlightened by an unembedded narrative. Like that of Glenn Greenwald and other free journalists.

[GiaGiovanni]

281. I wish I could rec your post

We're toast, aren't we.

[Recursion]

294. Again, no. The Telco warrants are targeted to the telco providers, who own the data

The record Ma Bell keeps of whom you call is hers, not yours.

[markpkessinger]

239. Because he dared to point out the emperor's unclothed state n/t

[dipsydoodle]

250. Sounds about right.

.

[madrchsod]

252. signing the book deal was is my reason

signing the book deal when snowden was sitting in limbo in a russian airport.

[GiaGiovanni]

253. A book deal on the NSA info?

That could have been very useful.

[frazzled]

259. I've disliked him since 2006

Well. Not him (I could care less), but his libertarian views, his style, his ethics and methods.

It long predates this NSA stuff ... By at least 7 years. And it's not because I didn't follow what he was saying. I actually bought his first book. That was actually the first tipoff to the things I didn't like. I gave the book away, a d have found him increasingly grating ever since.

[Tikki]

262. This surveillance sh*t has been going on for a very, very, very long time...

This greenwald guy was born yesterday, but I wasn't.


Tikki

[GiaGiovanni]

272. What's your best guess about how long it has been going on?

Thanks.

[Tikki]

273. At least since the Eisenhower Administration. I lived a while in a Government town...

as a young one. I would over~hear my family talk about what was known about the
workers at the different clearance levels.



Tikki

[GiaGiovanni]

274. That far back!

That's frightening.

[Tikki]

275. The Wiki says 1952 for the NSA...sounds about right.

Tikki

[GiaGiovanni]

276. What was that Frank Zappa quote about opening the curtain

and seeing the wall? (Do I have that right?)

[Tikki]

277. Today the NSA is that shiny object, the new gray, the OMG it's all about me...

There are government agencies that have out~lived their usefulness...there are
those that need to morph a bit and those that should stay.



Tikki

[GiaGiovanni]

278. Suggestions?

?"

[Tikki]

279. Study the History of the NSA, how it has been used throughout the whole 60 years of it's existence..

It exists for a reason. Do not assume that the Americans of yester~year were not aware of
government uses and abuses in personal freedoms..the 60's come to mind*..be careful to understand what you are
fighting for or against.

Information passes by the desk of legislators and law enforcement every day that can make a difference in
even one person's life if acted upon.

This would be a time to ask for clarification and definition of the information gathering and it's uses..
... today's NSA does not necessarily mean an OMG me, me, me moment.


Tikki
*the 60's..where there was a no need for the public to know and where we wouldn't understand the information anyway..sigh.

[GiaGiovanni]

280. Interesting.

Thank you.

[TheKentuckian]

301. Because many are Tories soul deep others collect a check to

other folks are made of the same marshmallow fluff that constitutes the beady eyed, slackjawed chumps that were pissing their pants with each change of the color code others are swooning cheerleaders that would be leading the damn bandwagon if their hero wasn't at the helm.

A lot of folks with a lot of different reasons for fierce and urgent support, covering, and tirelessly working for a corrupt establishment.

There are all kind of reasons, excuses, and creative framing and they aren't impressive.

Sadly, some folks have moved from anti-liberal to anti-American and anti-Democracy. Their leading edge of reason apparently operates under the assumption that this will be the first benign surveillance state until such time as they have definitive proof of abuses outside of whatever passes for legal in a given moment with the burden of proof not on the state and corporations asserting the power under the cloak of secrecy but rather on the people.
They refuse to accept that they have the burden of proof because they are clearly making the exceptional claim about such structures and their safe guards from abuse. The historical track record isn't inspiring.