Sony Issues Takedown Of Mashup Album That Did Reinterpretation Using Original (Non-Sony) Samples

Congress, Finally Curious About NSA Spying, Discovers That It's Even More Widespread Than Previously Believed

from the and,-to-think,-they-could-have-asked-before dept

Thu, Jun 13th 2013 4:15pm — Mike Masnick

As we've been pointing out for some time, a small number of elected officials in Congress have been practically screaming at the top of their lungs -- within the confines of what they're allowed to say about classified information -- that the NSA is clearly abusing its spying powers given to them under the Patriot Act. And, most of Congress didn't care. Last September, we noted that the House was ready to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act, which includes a key provision that enabled part of the spying, and it refused to ask the NSA to answer some basic questions about how it was using the law. Those questions likely would have revealed much of the vast surveillance efforts that are now generating so much interest and controversy. Later, in voting for it, many in Congress flat out misrepresented what was in the bill itself. Rep. Trey Gowdy, who once argued that reporters should be put in jail if they report on intelligence leaks, insisted, vehemently, that the surveillance portion of the bill had "nothing to do with Americans on American soil." Gowdy's been silent on the issue since the leaks came out.

However, others in Congress, have suddenly become curious about what the NSA is doing, and they got a secret briefing, which apparently opened quite a few eyes. Rep. Linda Sanchez has noted that what's become public is "just the tip of the iceberg," suggesting that the NSA is going much, much further with its surveillance capabilities than what has already been revealed. That isn't all that surprising, but it is depressing (and ridiculous) that Congress is only curious enough to explore this issue now, despite many, many claims by fellow members of Congress that this was happening. I appreciate the fact that Reps. like Sanchez are now seeking the truth, but it's distressing that our own representatives ignored these points for so long, despite their colleagues trying to highlight the issue. Now, hopefully, this means that Congress will being to do something to stop the abuse.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said lawmakers learned "significantly more" about the spy programs at the National Security Agency (NSA) during a briefing on Tuesday with counterterrorism officials.

"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."

Well, what is out in the media... so far. Glenn Greenwald has already indicated that there are dozens of additional stories and revelations to come out of the other documents he has in his possession.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, fisa amendments act, linda sanchez, nsa nsa surveillance, trey gowdy

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:25pm

What a crock
Yeah, like Congress was clueless up until now about the NSA. Who do you think empowered and protected the NSA? Now, because their massive domestic spying program has been exposed, only now, Congress acts like it's outraged while it's under public scrutiny.

In the meantime, they've just polished off their Utah spying center and are going ahead with building another in Maryland. Guess who granted the NSA the taxpayer funding necessary to further erode our Constitutional rights? Yeah, my point exactly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re: What a crock
  Honestly, I just watched a bit of Director Mueller from the FBI, and he had a good point. The NSA, FBI, etc hold meetings to discuss these programs with Congress and the Judical branch (FISA courts).
  http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/full/fullcomm_06132013.wvx
  Min: 52:10
  It's Congress' duty to ask questions and hold accountable the members of these organizations that they are upholding the laws and constitution of the US. So basically, it sounds to me that since 9/11, Congress has just been a rubber stamp as has been the FISA courts to erode our rights as citizens. This is a complete break down of the three branches of government.
  I don't blame the cops/military/FBI etc, it's their job to hunt down people. It's the job of congress to ensure that the laws are written correctly to protect our freedoms and still have the ability to go after criminals. It's also the FISA court's and DoJ's responsibility to ensure those laws are followed according to set standards of previous judgements and the given laws. Since everyone just seems to have this attitude of no holds barred, it's basically just saying let's throw the Constitution in the trash because there's terrorists....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re: What a crock
    And it's our jobs as citizens to hold our elected officials accountable to do their jobs.
    
    I don't know about you guys but I've been emailing my reps for years now letting them know what I approve of and what I don't.
    
    I'm just one guy - if a whole slew of people actually stood up for their rights, maybe congress would listen a little more intently.
    
    FWIW, Feinstein is my senator, and I have NEVER ONCE voted for her - she's a corrupt dinosaur of a senator, and she deserves to be put to pasture.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What a crock
      Bypass the crocks, debate the issues outside congress, plan and draft the laws and then elect the people who will put it in practice, up until that day nothing will change.
      
      Those people in congress are impervious to mail from actual voters.
      
      To hold them accountable we would need legal frameworks that don't exist today.
      
      How to put that in there?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What a crock
        Are you saying that even if Americans' confidence in Congress falls to 5% nothing will change?
        
        "Americans' confidence in Congress as an institution is down to 10%, ranking the legislative body last on a list of 16 societal institutions for the fourth straight year. This is the lowest level of confidence Gallup has found, not only for Congress, but for any institution on record."
        
        http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-falls-lowest-record.aspx
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What a crock
      if a whole slew of people actually stood up for their rights, maybe congress would listen a little more intently
      
      Dude, it's like the Congressional leadership are explaining that the United States surrendered to the Soviet Union.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymouse, 14 Jun 2013 @ 4:04am
    
    Re: Re: What a crock
    There must be a way that this data collection can be used to protect the country without the ability to use the data to attack or coerce the average citizen. Imagine being able to use this only for good. I think somewhere people are sitting on data that could possibly bring the government down and that is a good thing to know as long as it is not abused and used by any organization to blackmail the gov.
    
    Somehow the NSA needs to limit access to this data to a few and only use it for the good of the country.
    
    I would not mind if it was used to prevent crimes being committed, major crimes that is, but i am totally against it being used to control people by using it to collect data on someones personal list of people they dislike.Or being used by the courts to force people to accept being abused by this knowledge.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dirkmaster (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re: What a crock
    "It's Congress' duty to ask questions and hold accountable the members of these organizations that they are upholding the laws and constitution of the US."
    Tough for them to do this when the bastards lie to their faces, telling them that they are specifically NOT doing the exact thing they ARE doing.
    
    Now, about these lying to Congress charges, Mr. Clapper.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2013 @ 5:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What a crock
      I guess that they didn't notice something was fishy, when they retroactively gave immunity to the US telecommunication companies. See Hepting v. AT&T
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:33pm

Human nature is flawed.
That's the problem with human nature today. Despite being warned about dangers that concern their well-being, they end up completely ignoring the problem until after it's difficult to repair.

I can't help but wonder if this is all just political grandstanding until the next major event shoves the NSA leak issue out of the public eye. All that needs to happen is another act of nature that kills hundreds or another bomb threat and major media outlets will shift their attention to covering those and this whole debacle will be put behind us as another "fluke."

I hope not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re: Human nature is flawed.
  Don't worry so much. With their current capabilities, so long as they are not restricted now, the NSA should be able to stop any act of nature that would harm the USA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:37pm

Back on the teat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukdkR-1V5ik

MILK MILK MILK!!!

Never ever discuss your beliefs directly and honestly. Just milk it for all the clicks you can. Yeah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- apauld (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re:
  Aww, poor little girl is being ignored by the object of his demented sexual lusts, aww.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Have a heart man, the guy is suffering from hemp-milk withdrawn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:52pm
  
  Re:
  Delicious tears, I drink them up!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 10:33pm
  
  Re:
  so milk is the new kool-aid?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DP, 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  Bloody mad!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:53pm

Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
Saw this news in The Guardian first, and had to Google to confirm it from another source.

�Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database�, by Tim Mak, Politico, June 13, 2013

The NSA does not need a court order to search the database it maintains of the call data surrendered by the nation�s telecommunications firms, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told reporters on Thursday.�.�.�.

To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,� Feinstein told reporters. �Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it�s one number or two numbers. That�s all you have� if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.�

Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, �that�s my understanding.�

�.�.�.�.

Unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
  �Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database�, by Tim Mak, Politico, June 13, 2013
  
  Same thing Hayden said earlier this week:
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130611/18344823416/former-nsa-boss-we-dont-datamine-our- giant-data-collection-we-just-ask-it-questions.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:06am
    
    Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
    Same thing Hayden said earlier this week
    
    But not the impression I got from reading DNI James Clapper's NBC News interview with Andrea Mitchell.
    
    �Transcript of Andrea Mitchell's Interview with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper�, NBC News, June 9, 2013
    
    Mitchell: � when Americans woke up and learned because of these leaks that every single telephone call in this United States, as well as elsewhere, but every call made by these telephone companies that they collect is archived, the numbers, just the numbers, and the duration of these calls.�
    
    Clapper: � We ha-- we are under strict court supervision and have to get stricter-- and have to get permission to actually-- actually look at that.
    
    Looking closer at that question and response that I've partially excerpted above, it appears that Ms. Mitchell was asking specifically about the phone records program. But Gen. Clapper was perhaps answering about something else.
    
    That's a pretty typical politician thing: Ignore the question the reporter asked, and instead answer some other question that the politician wants to answer.
    
    Mitchell: � There are accidents. NBC News was told by one of your predecessors Dennis Blair that in fact one digit was inaccurately-- inputted back in 2009 and it was a completely innocent person whose telephone conversations was actually-- were actually eavesdropped on.
    
    Clapper: � And this is all done in response to court oversight and court direction.
    
    Here Ms. Mitchell is again referring specifically to the phone program. Gen. Clapper reinforces the misleading response he gave to the earlier question.
    
    Nor am I the only person to get this wrong impression�although others who got that impression were not necessarily basing that on the James Clapper interview. There have been articles in Slate, Forbes, and elsewhere, all leading to the impression that the court's role wasn't over after the judge rubberstamps the production order.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
      Here's the articles in Slate, and Forbes that I referenced above.
      
      � �The Case for Mass Surveillance�, by William Saletan, Slate, June 10, 2013
      
      � �How The NSA Tracks Your Calls�, by Jeff Kelly, Forbes, June 7, 2013
      
      That �article� in Forbes is perhaps better characterized as a �blog post�. The author, Jeff Kelly, is some kind of �Big Data Research Analyst at Wikibon.org�.
      
      �
      
      Rather than providing a links for the �elsewhere� that I referred to above, instead, I'll just drill down into one analyst's source, the �DNI Statement on Recent Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified Information� (June 06, 2013). That analyst highlights the DNI assertion:
      
      � By order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. All information that is acquired under this program is subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.�
      
      Reading that ODNI press release carefully, it really does not actually say that the court is supervising the process after it rubberstamps the production order.
      
      But "strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling" seems to imply that the FISC isn't just a total rubberstamp.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
  Unbelievable.
  
  I better clarify what I mean by the single word: �Unbelievable�.
  
  I mean I'm stunned, shocked: � This is incredible.
  
  �
  
  �
  
  But, yeah, I actually have no reason to doubt that Ms. Feinstein is honestly relating her understanding of the program. And her understanding is not entirely at variance with the testimony that I've previously heard on this matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
  "...To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,� Feinstein told reporters. �Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it�s one number or two numbers. That�s all you have� if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.�
  
  I've reached the point where it's virtually impossible for me to believe anything these politicians have to say. I don't believe what Feinstein has to say. This is the same person who said that if she'd disarm every American if she could.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
    � impossible for me to believe anything these politicians have to say�
    
    Well, do you believe Mr Sensenbrenner, when he said Section 215 "was originally drafted to prevent data mining" on the scale that's occurred�do you believe Mr Sensenbrenner?
    
    �
    
    ( Possibly Mr Sensenbrenner didn't really say that. I followed Mike's Techdirt link back to Lindsey Grudnicki's story. But is that story made up out of whole cloth? Do you believe reporters? )
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
      Let me rephrase my original statement: I don't TRUST politicians. I just don't. They run on platforms designed to woo voters, then turn around and do bad things. Tell me, shouldn't EVERY American politician put their country first?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Digitari, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
    "This is the same person who said that if she'd disarm every American if she could."
    
    Except herself of course......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
      Of course. Same goes for Bloomberg, Obama, Biden and all the rest. They get 24/7 protection.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 8:20am
  
  Re: Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
  Saw this news in The Guardian first�
  
  This isn't the report I originally saw in The Guardian, but a later story. It contains substantially the same news, with some elaboration.
  
  �NSA to release details of attacks it claims were foiled by surveillance�, by Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, June 13, 2013
  
  �.�.�. [Senator Dianne] Feinstein�s comments followed an afternoon briefing attended by 47 senators about two NSA programs.�.�.�.
  
  �.�.�. Feinstein also cleared up a lingering uncertainty about the role of the courts in overseeing the NSA�s ability to comb through its database of the phone records of millions of Americans. The NSA has the ability to search the database unilaterally.
  
  �To search the database you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that an individual is connected to a terrorist group,� Feinstein said. �Then you can get the numbers. If you want to collect content, then you get a court order.�
  
  Pressed by the Guardian if that meant the NSA did not require a court order to search through the database, she replied, �That�s my understanding.��.�.�.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:05pm

What to do with a rogue government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Patriotic American, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re:
  What to do with a rogue government?
  
  Like Thomas Paine once wrote its only Common Sense
  That if a government won't give you your basic rights
  You better get another government!
  
  At least that is what Schoolhouse Rock taught me.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrSeCYSnj5Y
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Additional ironic thought
    
    A government formed by terrorists is now afraid of terrorists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They're not afraid of terrorists; they're afraid of the American people. It's only once you consider their intentions towards us to be hostile that everything begins to make sense: create a massive domestic spying program, militarize the police, seek to disarm people, the TSA, DHS buying up billions of round of ammo and no-hesitation targets depicting ordinary citizens, including children and the elderly armed with guns, etc.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 11:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Now we just need to get them to build an AI to fight terrorists. Cookie to those who get the reference.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now we just need to get them to build an AI to fight terrorists. Cookie to those who get the reference.
        
        If it's a Terminator reference then I want my cookie. That wasn't so much terrorists though so I think no cookie for me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bakuninfan (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:28pm

do u believe B.O. or Ed S.?`
Please slooshy this independent ex-radio host:

http://www.peterbcollins.com/newscomment/pbc-news-comment-do-you-believe-barack-obama-or-ed -snowden/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:32pm

"That isn't all that surprising,"
"That isn't all that surprising, but it is depressing (and ridiculous)" -- I'm almost to conclude that what we're let believe is a human being called "Mike Masnick" is in fact a 15 year experiment in Artificial Intelligence re-writing "news" into synopsis. Main evidence for this is the frequent repetition of phrases denoting a lack of surprise and the over-use of "ridiculous", both here in one sentence! That, plus the near complete lack of firm opinions. It's an NPR-bot, concerned in tone but lacking strong emotion, synthesizing general opinion but not up to noticing trends. And it apparently has direct access to Google's servers to ferret out the extremely rare anomalies it needs to make a case for its only known goal, destroying copyright.

Mechanical Mike.

Yeah, that's all I got, 'cause as usual, "This isn't surprising." And the topic is nothing one can't find all over. I keep wondering WHAT the draw is here. It's not scintillating writing, brilliant insights, or fiery outrage... I'm afraid that the draw is the critics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  Funny thing is. ....
  I always thougt OOTB was one of those "artificial intelligence" chat bots that you get bored of after five minutes because everything they say is unrelated to the topic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:38pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  And yet even if we assume everything you just said was correct, it would still make "Mechanical Mike" and his "re-writes" far more interesting than anything you have ever said...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  Lulu and the Lampshades � Cups (You're Gonna Miss Me)
  
  When his gone
  When his gone
  You're gonna miss him when his gone
  You're gonna miss him by his walk
  You'll miss him by his talk, oh
  You're gonna miss him when his gone
  
  NSA database query.
  CASE WHEN music = "anomaly" THEN 'Alert' WHEN music != "anomaly" THEN 'move on' ELSE 'ignore' END
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  Hi Cathy, why are you afraid to have comments on your blog without them having to be approved first. Why do you censor your critics?
  
  Scared of having the truth on your site for a change?
  
  You are a crazy nutbag who has no idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 8:22pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  I declare out_of_the_blue too stupid (WAY too stupid) to be allowed the privilege of living on my planet. This is your eviction notice. Pack your things and get out.
  
  The rest of you can thank me later. ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 9:04pm
  
  Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
  This can't be blue. This is AJ. Now the trolls are trolling each other. Then again, Joe and blue could be just separate personalities of the same person. Just think what it's like to have multiple personalities and having them all be dickheads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:43am
    
    Re: Re: "That isn't all that surprising,"
    There are now four of them with random impersonators.
    
    Cathy is the rabid anti-communist/google/socialist/collectivist/pirate and fanatical maximalist.
    
    There's a quasi-libertarian Blue, a left-wing "rich are parasites" Blue, and a rational Blue.
    
    This appears to be a random one.
    
    Cathy uses a timestamp to identify herself. And raves about teh googlez spying on her.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:32pm

It's not fair. The executive is allowed to selectively leak whatsoever suits it's purpose. However, congress is too scared to give anything but small hints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re:
  The executive controls the DOJ, they obviously will not arrest themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 5:37pm

Greenwald and the powers of dark...
I just hope that Greenwald has a REALLY good personal protection team... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

horse with no name, 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:53pm

Congress...
... having been asleep at the switch for nearly a decade, awakens out of it's slumber to hear the Man who Cried Wolf Wyman kicking up a fuss about something or another again. A few decide to investigate further, and discover that, once they manage to focus past all the rubber stamps on a document, that they don't like it as much as they did before when scaring the people about terrorists was more in fashion (aka, the Bush years).

It's not much of a story, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 9:23pm
  
  Re: Congress...
  If you're going to insult someone it helps to spell their name right. That way... no, unfortunately in your case no one's going to take you seriously, you John Steele fanboy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - horse with no name, 13 Jun 2013 @ 10:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Congress...
    Hi paid troll. I wondered how long it would take you to collect your paycheck. You got paid, you can go away now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 10:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Congress...
      Your best excuses for an argument have been nothing but "bawk, cluck, moo" over the past few days. You can't even be bothered to get your names or facts right.
      
      So how much time of your life have you spent in Germany?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Congress...
      Paid by whom? Seriously, make a little sense, here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:47pm

Guardian DDOS?
As of this writing, I can't successfully access any of the Guardian's websites. Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:34am
  
  Re: Guardian DDOS?
  me either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 11:03pm

Greenwald should probably release the documents as encrypted torrents where he can release the password via a surrogate if anything should happen to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:58am

at this point, it's probably better to assume that anything you do online can be tracked in detail by the NSA. it seems to be where this is going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 2:25am

a) even this meeting was done 'in secret'

b)who really believes it's only the NSA doing this? come on!!

c)if those in Congress were as interested in DOING THEIR JOB OF PROTECTING THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE SIZE OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS perhaps this would not have happened in the first place. but even though it has happened, the worst thing is the embarrassment to the government and the distrust now instilled in the people

d)what will Congress do in future, to try to ensure this doesn't happen again? that answer would be a big, fat nothing!! as soon as the heat is turned down, it will be back to 'business as usual' with those that dont want to see, still not seeing what they dont want to and not doing what they are elected to do, protect the people!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]