PRISM

[Lamplighter]

And the beat goes on...this time it's "DROPMIRE"

The Guardian
Ewen MacAskill
6/30/13

New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies
Exclusive: Edward Snowden papers reveal 38 targets including EU, France and Italy

<snip>
One of the bugging methods mentioned is codenamed 'Dropmire',
which according to a 2007 document is "implanted on the Cryptofax at the EU embassy, DC"
– an apparent reference to a bug placed in a commercially
available encrypted fax machine used at the mission.
The NSA documents notes the machine is used to send cables back
to foreign affairs ministries in European capitals.<snip>

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported at the weekend that
some of the bugging operations in Brussels targeting the EU's Justus Lipsius building
– a venue for summit and ministerial meetings in the Belgian capital –
were directed from within Nato headquarters nearby.<snip>

The US intelligence service codename for the bugging operation
targeting the EU mission at the United Nations is 'Perdido'.
The operation against the French mission to the UN had the covername 'Blackfoot'
and the one against its embassy in Washington was 'Wabash'.
The Italian embassy in Washington was known to the NSA as both 'Bruneau' and 'Hemlock'.
The eavesdropping of the Greek UN mission was known as 'Powell"
and the operation against its embassy was referred to as 'Klondyke'.

Although the latest documents are part of an NSA haul leaked by Snowden,
it is not clear in each case whether the surveillance was being exclusively done by the NSA
– which is most probable as the embassies and missions are technically overseas –
or by the FBI or the CIA, or a combination of them.
The 2010 document describes the operation as "close access domestic collection".

[piercehawkeye45]

You have to be wary of Putin's intentions but this is interesting:

"Russia never hands over anybody anywhere and has no intention to do so," Mr Putin told a news conference in Moscow.

"If he (Snowden) wants to remain here there is one condition - he should stop his work aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners no matter how strange this may sound coming from me."

This is the clearest indication yet, says the BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow, that Mr Putin is keen to avoid damaging relations with Washington over the Snowden case.

The Russian president also stressed Mr Snowden "is not our agent and does not co-operate with us", and Russian secret services "never worked with him and are not working with him now".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23135734

[BigV]

And I should trust Putin's public remarks, take them at face value because....??? Please refresh my memory, because I can't recall any reason to do so.

[regular.joe]

politics aside, does anyone disagree that the security of our free nation depends upon certain things? Sometimes we have to collect information to determine if people in and outside of the US would be our enemies and attempt to do something like..say...bomb a federal building, or fly a plane into a New York sky scraper. These folks exist, and are planning daily to do harm to the United States. If we stick our collective heads in the sand then we will end up asking questions like...HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE KNOWN?!?!?!? Seriously? Foreign nations who collect on us, and whom we collect on will take the public stance of how wrong this is are just trying to get one up on the good ole US. We all know what we do. We try not to poke each other in the eye in public. These guys who disclose secret information to the general public through leaks are traitors to their nation and harm us in many, many ways. They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked, and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

And I should trust Putin's public remarks, take them at face value because....??? Please refresh my memory, because I can't recall any reason to do so.

You should also not trust him with any of your jewelry.

[Griff]

Joe the disagreement lies with the determination of when the security state becomes counter-productive to its own claimed goals. The leakers are traitors to the state but they are not traitors to the people.

[Lamplighter]

<snip>These guys who disclose secret information to the general public
through leaks are traitors to their nation and harm us in many, many ways.

They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked,
and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

I have trouble with each of these statements,
primarily because I don't think there is a bright red line
between being " a traitor " a " whistleblower " and " civil disobediance "

When leaks occur about government activities, the first reaction
of the government is to publicly label the person a "spy" or "traitor"
and the government usually seeks some kind of criminal charge(s).
This is what is happening with Snowden now.
Only time will tell if harm was done, and if the government charges are valid.

....

Then with respect to signing non-disclosure charges, again I don't think there's a bright red line.

The case of Thomas Drake, starting in the 2002, is a prime example
of someone signing all sorts of non-disclosure documents
and advancing through promotions up through the CIA and NSA.
He followed all the proscribed legal procedures to correct issues.
He then publicly disclosed problems he had identified as "illegal",
and was then indicted by the government, as I described above.

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent"
A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know
If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret,
their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

... They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked, and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent" A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret, their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.

Divulging classified information has always been illegal; but, the government has always had difficulty in successfully prosecuting such cases. That's because the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be created if a violator uncovered illegal activity, official misconduct, wasn't clear on what was classified and what wasn't, feared reprisal as an internal whistleblower; or, had a crystalizing moment in which the violator became a conscientious objector to something subsequently learned.

So the government went the corporate route back around '86-'87 and started having everyone with a security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements; otherwise, lose their security clearances and most likely their jobs ... including military personnel who would be immediately processed for separation. I signed mine.

The nondisclosure agreements in themselves did not make divulging classified information illegal, there were already laws on the books for that. The agreements reminded people that it was illegal and more importantly provided for forfeiture to the government of any tangible gains a violator may realize from the breach of security. The government can sue violators just as corporations can sue individuals who violate nondisclosure agreements protecting proprietary information. These are civil cases in which the burden of proof is simply "a preponderance of the evidence" that they broke the law.

Shades of O.J.

Snowden could have stayed for trial in the court of public opinion and sought a Presidential pardon; but no, he ran like a traitor. Even if he never sees a day in jail here, the government can try to seize his assets anywhere they may be and every chance it gets for the rest of his life.

[BigV]

similar to prefacing a conversation with:

"I'll tell you, but you have to promise not to get mad."

Really. Regardless of the answer to that question, it can't be an example of informed consent. Setting aside the whole difference between a conscious action like repeating information and experiencing a feeling, such an agreement is like prior restraint.

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place. An alternative to prior restraint is to allow the expression to take place and to take appropriate action afterward, if the expression is found to violate the law, regulations, or other rules.

Prior restraint prevents the censored material from being heard or distributed at all; other measures provide sanctions only after the offending material has been communicated, such as suits for slander or libel. In some countries (e.g., United States, Argentina) prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution.

Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license. It can also take the form of a legal injunction or government order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, a government or other party becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance.
...

Exceptions to restrictions on prior restraint

Not all restrictions on free speech are a breach of the prior restraint doctrine. It is widely accepted that publication of information affecting national security, particularly in wartime, may be restricted, even when there are laws that protect freedom of expression. In many cases invocation of national security is controversial, with opponents of suppression arguing that government errors and embarrassment are being covered up;

Certainly there's a question as to whether or not the material that has been revealed constitutes a harm to our national security or an embarrassment to our government, or both and to what degree. That's a conversation worth having. Our whole system of government has as one of its cornerstones openness in contrast to secrecy.

[Lamplighter]

V, we are probably using different terms to speak of different ideas.

"Prior restraint", as you say, is what the authority/owner is attempting to impose
by having the power to impose a non-disclosure clause or agreement.

"Informed consent" is what the person needs for a good-faith and
continued binding to any contract or (non-disclosure) agreement.

When a person discovers or encounters something they were not informed about,
their "informed consent" may be tainted, and thereby also is their continued obligation to a signed document.

Analogies are not good arguments, but having said that I still
think about something like this: Imagine military personnel are required
to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding all battlefield activities,
and then something like the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam occurs.

Can the government impose prior restraint on everything, anything,
if the continuity of a person's conscience is (or knowledge) is broken ?

Sure, force/punishment can be used to make the person weigh the alternatives.
But in the long run we see thru civil disobedience that it often backfires.

[BigV]

People give UNinformed consent all the time.

eta: We all give incompletely informed consent, all the time. There are vanishingly few circumstances where our consent is required and where we know all the information. But often, we can know enough.

I think in a case like what we're seeing and hearing about Snowden, I don't know what agreement he'd signed, I imagine he probably violated the letter of such an agreement. I don't have the actual evidence, so I don't know, just speculating here. I also don't know what he's revealed, but what I've read indicates that he's revealed the existence of programs and behavior, but none of the content. Perhaps he's gone as far as confirming what some parties suspected. I don't know if that's a crime, and I'm not even sure what he's done is wrong or important. If it is as serious as some folks are saying, then I would seriously question the organizations and policies that led to such a "damaging" act. How rigorously are these people who have access to such sensitive material vetted? I know we're in a time where more and more and more and more information is redacted or withdrawn or on a need to know basis--this movement troubles me.

I do agree with regular.joe that there *IS* a legitimate need for state secrets. But it is not a need without limits or oversight. All things done in secret I believe inevitably leads to corruption and failure. I'd like to reach other limits before my state faces corruption or failure.

[Lamplighter]

I do agree with regular.joe that there *IS* a legitimate need for state secrets.

Me too. And I agree there are limits, both in the direction of secrecy and in transparency.

FWIW, Thomas Drake made an hour-long public presentation
to the Press Club which is available on YouTube (3Wp2BGLMqDM).
There's a lot fluff in the first 25 min, but then he gets to the meat
of his own case and what he was observing in/after 2002
- illegal "warrant-less wire taps" on large numbers of people.
- "legal - but secret" collection of data on large numbers of people
- unnecessary "over-classification" and secrecy "at the highest level"
- wasteful expenditures of huge sums of $, for little or no gain

I think that his presentation and the Q&A following raised exactly
the issues we are seeing, now in detail, with Snowden.

Drake's case put an end to the illegal warrant-less wire taps,
and he was exonerated on the "legal- but secret" programs
that wasted billions of $.
Eventually, the government case against him was dropped.

My point is/has been, that a good-faith, informed, Agreement is necessary in on the part of both parties.

[tw]

We know Snowden has forced a discussion of a part of the US government that even Congressman cannot audit. We spend more on these 'secret' budget items than other countries spend on their entire military. And we know this 'secret' government is taking liberties that threatens foundations of a democracy.

Whether Snowden is a scoundrel or a hero has yet to be determined. Because we still do not know how 'out of control' this part of our government is. And because we have not yet defined what is legal and illegal. Years from now, when that decision is made, only then can we define Snowden's actions.

Calling him a rat because he ran is a cheapshot that ignores what is more important.

We know George Jr had a memo on his desk warning of bin Laden's actions involving planes or buildings. We had sufficient intelligence. "All lights were flashing red." Instead of blaming the problem, we gave the 'secret' government unrestricted access. We are now living with that legacy based in the Cheney's paranoia.

We must decide how excessive this 'secret' government has become. Limits currently are not defined. Boundary lines only exist on paper. We are discussing this only because of Snowden's actions. Snowden really is not the story. The story is about excessive government actions and the legacies of Mission Accomplished.

Pentagon papers were not about Ellsberg. They were also about a government that had become wacko extremist so as to not think or act rationally. In that case, we massacred 50,000 Americans to no useful purpose. Snowden is about a spy system without limits that has not yet caused wars and unnecessary deaths. WikiLeaks were saying same.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by tw

Whether Snowden is a scoundrel or a hero has yet to be determined. Because we still do not know how 'out of control' this part of our government is. And because we have not yet defined what is legal and illegal. Years from now, when that decision is made, only then can we define Snowden's actions.

Snowden says he will release more information in the future so that will give better insight about his intentions.

I can understand how Snowden believes that PRISM is wrong and unconstitutional, however, I am confused why he is releasing evidence that the US spies on its European allies. This is not illegal or unconstitutional and won't do much besides deteriorate our relationship with them. Also, countries spying on each other is pretty common practice (not that this necessarily justifies it). We have had a lot of issues with the French and Israelis.

[Undertoad]

We spend more on these 'secret' budget items than other countries spend on their entire military.

On the other hand, this is the type of war we wage where we don't kill [a lot of] people.

We know George Jr had a memo on his desk warning of bin Laden's actions involving planes or buildings.

Planes or buildings. Well there are a shit ton of planes and a shit ton of buildings, so that sounds like something we should DEFINITELY get more specific information on, otherwise there's nothing that can really be done! Amiright? So how do you get more specific information without spying?

I'm not saying there isn't excessive spying going on, just asking a few difficult questions.