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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
27. Snowden was
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:28 AM
May 2014

"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 everybody’s Constitutional rights’http://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 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 sectors—which 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 companies—information 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 more—we 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
Drake didn't go to Russia. He revealed exactly what Snowden did, 9 years ago. Recursion Apr 2014 #1
Snowden wouldn't have been treated like Drake. Chelsea Manning's ordeal proves that. n/t. Ken Burch May 2014 #2
Like Snowden, Manning bulk-released classified intel. Drake didn't. Recursion May 2014 #3
Which doesn't exactly vindicate Drake's strategy there, does it? n/t. Ken Burch May 2014 #10
I dunno. Has it stopped because of Snowden, either? (nt) Recursion May 2014 #15
Not yet, but unlike with Drake, it hasn't actually got WORSE. Ken Burch May 2014 #17
Sure it has. A weaker NSA means a stronger CIA. That's much worse. Recursion May 2014 #23
There's no moral difference between the NSA and the CIA Ken Burch May 2014 #24
Surveillance *never* serves the people? Recursion May 2014 #25
OK, it did in World War II, when we were fighting a real enemy(the Nazis) Ken Burch May 2014 #28
So, for example, catching John Gotti wasn't worth tapping his phone? Recursion May 2014 #29
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
Healthcare records have nothing in common with NSA surveillance. Ken Burch May 2014 #35
Ah, *these* government employees are good, and *those* ones are evil Recursion May 2014 #37
It's the truth. Ken Burch May 2014 #39
How many people who work at either do you actually know? Recursion May 2014 #42
I seriously doubt you know any humanistic democratic progressives Ken Burch May 2014 #49
+1000 Well stated cprise May 2014 #70
Well,the poster I was sparring with there still hasn't responded to it. Ken Burch May 2014 #75
If you can draw him into a philosophical discussion cprise May 2014 #78
Actually, yes. Adrahil May 2014 #86
Manning is military....they have an entirely different set of rules.... VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #5
Yes. Ken Burch May 2014 #12
did I say excuse? VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #16
Snowden would be given a life sentence without parole. Ken Burch May 2014 #33
30 years was th max he was facing. 10 years per count on 3 count arely staircase May 2014 #119
Drake himself agrees he is an example of what NOT to do cprise May 2014 #62
i doubt you'll get responses to this... druidity33 May 2014 #67
Pure ProSense May 2014 #69
No such "implication"... cprise May 2014 #74
FACTS SUCK!!!! / sarcarsm <-----cause this is needed around here uponit7771 May 2014 #90
And Snowden HAD to go to Russia or Hong Kong OnyxCollie May 2014 #4
Paul Revere ran to Russia, either by choice or out of stupidity... SidDithers May 2014 #6
Paul Revere *rode* to *Lexington*. MannyGoldstein May 2014 #8
He most certainly was a traitor--a traitor to the British Crown! MADem May 2014 #53
'He Is Priceless': Here's Why Edward Snowden Is Screwed ProSense May 2014 #7
You would prefer that nothing be changed. Ken Burch May 2014 #11
No, ProSense May 2014 #14
But there'd be no debate if Snowden hadn't done what he did. Ken Burch May 2014 #19
Snowden was ProSense May 2014 #27
You have so lost this "debate". cprise May 2014 #68
When backed into a corner surrounded by facts, Sheepshank May 2014 #102
As I pointed out, xenophobic conspiracy theories aren't 'facts'. n/t cprise May 2014 #103
If Snowden is Putin's tool, OnyxCollie May 2014 #21
From you link, PS.. thanks.. Cha May 2014 #26
And why are you dissing Assange? He was right, too. Ken Burch May 2014 #30
Given that we forced down the plane of a sovereign head of state, MannyGoldstein May 2014 #9
In the reality-based community, crackpot conspiracy theories don't become facts struggle4progress May 2014 #13
Other than apologies from foreign heads of state MannyGoldstein May 2014 #22
Portugal had notified Morales a day or two before his departure from Moscow that struggle4progress May 2014 #50
And didn't they later claim they had a fuel gauge issue? MADem May 2014 #56
We still owe Evo Morales and the people of Bolivia an apology for that. Ken Burch May 2014 #40
What actual evidence exists of any US involvement in that event at all? struggle4progress May 2014 #65
Thank you. snot May 2014 #18
I'm not. The pro-secrecy, pro-status quo brigade was bound to turn up. Ken Burch May 2014 #20
I wonder if Puglover May 2014 #115
He DID have the alternative to only collect and release information about US internal surveillance. pnwmom May 2014 #34
It's not cleanly separated like that. Ken Burch May 2014 #41
And it's not as if all his releases are fine, no matter what the content. n/t pnwmom May 2014 #44
I'm not at all comfortable... Adrahil May 2014 #85
He most certainly DID have one. He was either stupid, or he's everywhere he wants to be. MADem May 2014 #36
Would you agree that, once he said he wanted to go to South America Ken Burch May 2014 #38
For all you know, Putin organized that little playlet with Evo to create buzz. MADem May 2014 #43
Of course not. The US had no obligation to offer him unimpeded passage , pnwmom May 2014 #45
Excellent analysis, MADem! Cha May 2014 #47
P.S... Have you seen this theory? Cha May 2014 #48
Yes. I have to say, the more he pipes up, the more he makes the pronouncements about MADem May 2014 #51
Putin and Comrade Eddie needed to get Cha May 2014 #52
Enough with the "Comrade Eddie" crap Ken Burch May 2014 #76
Phrase has NOTHING to do with cold war and comrade is Russian term no US uponit7771 May 2014 #94
LOL!!! Capt. Obvious May 2014 #99
Comrade is actually a French term, adopted by the Russians. Ken Burch May 2014 #113
Isn't Putin doing that, restarting the Cold War? MADem May 2014 #106
He's trying to put the old pre-revolutionary Tsarist empire back together. Ken Burch May 2014 #114
I didn't say "commie"--I did say "Soviet Socialist Republics" though. MADem May 2014 #116
Nor has Wikileaks released the Russian files. joshcryer May 2014 #55
+1,000..! MADem May 2014 #57
1000+ uponit7771 May 2014 #93
Nothing leaked about Putin is a really good point, seems everyone else has been on the list except h uponit7771 May 2014 #92
The events are accurate, but I don't think he intended it. joshcryer May 2014 #54
Two things stick out. Well, three. MADem May 2014 #58
So Snowden wasn't stuck in an airport? WOW!! This Snowden thing seems more rapped around Russia uponit7771 May 2014 #95
He probably went straight to a dacha when he landed. MADem May 2014 #104
I was very reluctant to think Snowden was anything but a broken toy. randome May 2014 #98
Excellent post! Bobbie Jo May 2014 #87
Of course! That's why Snowden went to China first! Major Hogwash May 2014 #46
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
K&R. redgreenandblue May 2014 #60
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
Wow. Get a grip! elias49 May 2014 #64
i hope that it never happens to you or anyone that you know or love.. frylock May 2014 #66
You'd wish cancer on his future KIDS? Like this would be THEIR fault? Ken Burch May 2014 #83
Snowden did NOT want to go to Russia. The US Govt forced him to remain there when they sabrina 1 May 2014 #71
Again, ProSense May 2014 #72
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
Bull. Snowden was funneled exactly where Assange wanted him. NT Adrahil May 2014 #101
Who's funding Assange these days? Could his name be Vladimir? MADem May 2014 #105
New taking points don't facts. Snowden was headed for SA When the US Govt forced sabrina 1 May 2014 #117
Make up your mind Sheepshank May 2014 #107
Repetition = Truth Bobbie Jo May 2014 #109
although it's not working very well in this case. n/t Sheepshank May 2014 #111
No, not so much Bobbie Jo May 2014 #112
And now to correct that erroneous statement from you. First, the US GOVT forced Snowden to REMAIN sabrina 1 May 2014 #118
look at your post #100...YOU said he "chose" Sheepshank May 2014 #120
This is not reality uponit7771 May 2014 #96
Snowden had alternative decisions, he chose not to use them. I doubt if Thinkingabout May 2014 #77
I surmise life in Russia is better than getting life in the US prison system cprise May 2014 #81
Life in Russia may be better for as long as Putin needs him to remain as a patsy. Thinkingabout May 2014 #84
He could have stayed in Hawaii lame54 May 2014 #79
Uh, no. Hawaii is part of the U.S., and he'd have been arrested there. Ken Burch May 2014 #80
I think you missed the point - but that's ok - good night lame54 May 2014 #82
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
"We all know that no other choices existed..." Blue_Tires May 2014 #91
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A reminder...Snowden had ...»Reply #27