Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A reminder...Snowden had NO ALTERNATIVE but to go to Russia. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)27. Snowden was
"But there'd be no debate if Snowden hadn't done what he did."
...hyped.
Snowden supporters and advisers say Clinton's remarks were unrealistic and reflect several factual misunderstandings about his predicament. They say he could not have availed himself of whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee (he worked for contractor Booz Allen) and his claims would not have been viewed as exposing any impropriety because authorities in all three branches of government had blessed the NSA telephone program as legal. A federal judge not privy to the program before the leaks later ruled it unconstitutional, but that decision is on appeal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024871696
NSA whistleblowers and others were already engaged in a debate.
NSA whistleblower: Illegal data collection a violation of everybodys Constitutional rightshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10021352829
White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy (WH blocks NSA from expanding monitoring)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101461977
Ron Wyden on NSA Spying & Secret Law
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4279272/ron-wyden-nsa-spying-secret-law
Obama Shuts Down NSA Cybersecurity Proposal
By Kevin Drum
Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post reports that the NSA and the White House are at odds over a proposal to increase surveillance of "critical infrastructure systems" in order to prevent cyberattacks:
The story leaves it unclear whether Tranche 2 is dead for good, or merely needs to be retooled to place clear limits on who's required to take part. Either way, given the intense interest in cybersecurity these days, I don't expect this proposal to go away.
On a political note, it's unclear how this will break down on party lines. Obviously the GOP base is inclined to think that anything Obama opposes must be good, and they certainly supported the increased surveillance powers that George Bush gave to NSA. On the other hand, tea partiers tend to be suspcious of this kind of Big Brotherish monitoring. So it's hard to say which way they'll jump. Probably against Obama is my guess.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/obama-shuts-down-nsa-cybersecurity-proposal
By Kevin Drum
Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post reports that the NSA and the White House are at odds over a proposal to increase surveillance of "critical infrastructure systems" in order to prevent cyberattacks:
The most contentious issue was a legislative proposal last year that would have required hundreds of companies that provide critical services such as electricity generation to allow their Internet traffic be continuously scanned using computer threat data provided by the spy agency. The companies would have been expected to turn over evidence of potential cyberattacks to the government.
....The NSA proposal, called Tranche 2, sparked fierce debate within the administration. It would have required an estimated 300 to 500 firms with a role in critical infrastructure systems to allow their Internet carrier or some other private company to scan their computer networks for malicious software using government threat data....NSA officials say this process would have been automated, preventing intrusion into the personal privacy of ordinary users visiting Web sites or exchanging electronic messages with friends.
....But the White House and other agencies, including the departments of Justice and Commerce, said the proposal left open the possibility that the large Internet carriers themselves could be designated critical entities. This, they said, could have allowed scanning of virtually all Internet traffic for cyberthreats on behalf of the government, opening a newly extensive window into American behavior online.
The story leaves it unclear whether Tranche 2 is dead for good, or merely needs to be retooled to place clear limits on who's required to take part. Either way, given the intense interest in cybersecurity these days, I don't expect this proposal to go away.
On a political note, it's unclear how this will break down on party lines. Obviously the GOP base is inclined to think that anything Obama opposes must be good, and they certainly supported the increased surveillance powers that George Bush gave to NSA. On the other hand, tea partiers tend to be suspcious of this kind of Big Brotherish monitoring. So it's hard to say which way they'll jump. Probably against Obama is my guess.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/obama-shuts-down-nsa-cybersecurity-proposal
White House, NSA weigh cybersecurity, personal privacy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-nsa-weigh-cyber-security-personal-privacy/2012/02/07/gIQA8HmKeR_print.html
February 2013:
President Obama Shows No CISPA-like Invasion of Privacy Needed to Defend Critical Infrastructure
By Michelle Richardson
Last night the President signed an executive order (EO) aimed at ramping up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the EO focuses on privacy-neutral coordination between the government and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI)such as the banking, communication, power, and transportation sectorswhich have long been regulated because of their fundamental role in the smooth operation of society. Now that these important entities are all connected to the internet, the administration insists that their cybersecurity be on par with their physical security.
There are two important information sharing advancements in the EO, and this time they are good for privacy. They do not include the many problems of legislation like the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) because an executive order by definition cannot take away the privacy protections granted by current statutes. In other words, the EO cannot exempt companies from privacy statutes, or let the government collect new information. It can only act within its existing power to change policies and practices.
Two cheers for cybersecurity programs that can do something besides spy on Americans.
The first information sharing advancement greases the wheels of information from the government to the private sector. Section 4 lights a fire under agencies and directs them to share more information with companiesinformation they already have and can legally collect under current law. Information flowing in this direction is nowhere as near as problematic as the opposite direction. To the extent that corporate and congressional advocates claim that CISPA is needed for this purpose, the administration beat them to the punch. The EO directs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security to set up a system to get threat information to critical infrastructure owners and operators. They have four months to pull it together.
The second information sharing provision is a net positive for civil liberties. Section 5 directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate current interagency information sharing. There is plenty of cyber information floating around the executive branch and across different agencies. There doesn't appear to be any publicly available regulation of how that information is protected for privacy purposes, and it may very well be that it is protected by a mish-mash of originating statutes that treat different types of information with varying protections. By holding the agencies accountable to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)transparency, choice, minimization and morewe may see a government-wide cybersecurity privacy regime evolve. To get it done right, PCLOB will need to be funded and staffed up, and advocacy will be needed to keep the agencies true to the FIPPs, but the President has now declared them the bellwether for cybersecurity information.
Overall, the EO is a win for privacy and civil liberties. It's a good reminder that while some are focused like a laser on turning our internet records over to the National Security Agency, there are a lot of other things that government can do to advance cybersecurity instead. Now it's up to all of us to make sure Congress follows the President's lead.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/president-obama-shows-no-cispa-invasion-privacy-needed
By Michelle Richardson
Last night the President signed an executive order (EO) aimed at ramping up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the EO focuses on privacy-neutral coordination between the government and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI)such as the banking, communication, power, and transportation sectorswhich have long been regulated because of their fundamental role in the smooth operation of society. Now that these important entities are all connected to the internet, the administration insists that their cybersecurity be on par with their physical security.
There are two important information sharing advancements in the EO, and this time they are good for privacy. They do not include the many problems of legislation like the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) because an executive order by definition cannot take away the privacy protections granted by current statutes. In other words, the EO cannot exempt companies from privacy statutes, or let the government collect new information. It can only act within its existing power to change policies and practices.
Two cheers for cybersecurity programs that can do something besides spy on Americans.
The first information sharing advancement greases the wheels of information from the government to the private sector. Section 4 lights a fire under agencies and directs them to share more information with companiesinformation they already have and can legally collect under current law. Information flowing in this direction is nowhere as near as problematic as the opposite direction. To the extent that corporate and congressional advocates claim that CISPA is needed for this purpose, the administration beat them to the punch. The EO directs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security to set up a system to get threat information to critical infrastructure owners and operators. They have four months to pull it together.
The second information sharing provision is a net positive for civil liberties. Section 5 directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate current interagency information sharing. There is plenty of cyber information floating around the executive branch and across different agencies. There doesn't appear to be any publicly available regulation of how that information is protected for privacy purposes, and it may very well be that it is protected by a mish-mash of originating statutes that treat different types of information with varying protections. By holding the agencies accountable to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)transparency, choice, minimization and morewe may see a government-wide cybersecurity privacy regime evolve. To get it done right, PCLOB will need to be funded and staffed up, and advocacy will be needed to keep the agencies true to the FIPPs, but the President has now declared them the bellwether for cybersecurity information.
Overall, the EO is a win for privacy and civil liberties. It's a good reminder that while some are focused like a laser on turning our internet records over to the National Security Agency, there are a lot of other things that government can do to advance cybersecurity instead. Now it's up to all of us to make sure Congress follows the President's lead.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/president-obama-shows-no-cispa-invasion-privacy-needed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022370043
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Snowden wouldn't have been treated like Drake. Chelsea Manning's ordeal proves that. n/t.
Ken Burch
May 2014
#2
The problem with that argument is that, if you accept surveillance in those cases,
Ken Burch
May 2014
#31
Yes, the government is capable of abusing its power. Good thing we don't have single payer, then?
Recursion
May 2014
#32
In the reality-based community, crackpot conspiracy theories don't become facts
struggle4progress
May 2014
#13
Portugal had notified Morales a day or two before his departure from Moscow that
struggle4progress
May 2014
#50
What actual evidence exists of any US involvement in that event at all?
struggle4progress
May 2014
#65
He DID have the alternative to only collect and release information about US internal surveillance.
pnwmom
May 2014
#34
He most certainly DID have one. He was either stupid, or he's everywhere he wants to be.
MADem
May 2014
#36
Yes. I have to say, the more he pipes up, the more he makes the pronouncements about
MADem
May 2014
#51
Nothing leaked about Putin is a really good point, seems everyone else has been on the list except h
uponit7771
May 2014
#92
So Snowden wasn't stuck in an airport? WOW!! This Snowden thing seems more rapped around Russia
uponit7771
May 2014
#95
Yes! Any idiot can see that a layover in Hong Kong on a flight from Hawaii to Moscow
Maedhros
May 2014
#110
Perhaps, but if he had half a brain he would have located himself in a country of his choice before
lostincalifornia
May 2014
#59
The pearl clutching over Snowden being stranded in Russia is just a distraction.
Obnoxious_One
May 2014
#61
Sowden is a dirty traitor and I wish cancer on him and any children he ever has. n/t
leeroysphitz
May 2014
#63
Snowden did NOT want to go to Russia. The US Govt forced him to remain there when they
sabrina 1
May 2014
#71
You can post all the words and links you want, but the FACT IS, Snowden WAS NOT HEADED FOR RUSSIA.
sabrina 1
May 2014
#73
Those are NOT the facts, even if he wasn't headed for Russia why the lie about being "stuck" in an
uponit7771
May 2014
#97
If he wanted to go to South America, why didn't he go there, instead of Hong Kong?
Adrahil
May 2014
#88
That has been explained over and over again. He was absolutely correct to choose a route that
sabrina 1
May 2014
#100
New taking points don't facts. Snowden was headed for SA When the US Govt forced
sabrina 1
May 2014
#117
And now to correct that erroneous statement from you. First, the US GOVT forced Snowden to REMAIN
sabrina 1
May 2014
#118
Life in Russia may be better for as long as Putin needs him to remain as a patsy.
Thinkingabout
May 2014
#84
Not if---as was reported early on--they were "on" to him and his security clearance was about to be
MADem
May 2014
#108
1. Most of the 'secrets' Snowden revealed have to do with international spying.
randome
May 2014
#89