Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ] www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology What I Told the NSA Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them: From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement. I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law. Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority. This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given. It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts. Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities. Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs. To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities. In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
That review does not really jive with the complaints from the people on the intelligence oversight committee, the NSA leaders who explicitly lied to congress, the complaint from the author of the patriot act that he thought the NSA was breaking the law, and the subsequently released complaints from the FISA court about illegal and non-credible abusive interpretations of the law and the FISA courts instructions. Also there were several reports saying nothing of consequence was prevented by the entire program. If you know him, maybe you want to ask him how he reconciles all these now matter of public record conflicts with what he just said. Of course he did leave wiggle room in the form of "[not] so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities." ie it was only somewhat illegal so hey thats ok then? Have to say it seems more plausible to me that they did a faux-forthright job of answering questions from this new review process. I mean what else could they do? Stonewall? Adam On 2 April 2014 19:56, <dan@geer.org> wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
Responding to various, Google up Geoff Stone; he's a Constitutional lawyer, clerked for Brennan, was Dean of the Law School and then Provost of U Chicago. His relationship with President Obama may well result in Obama's Presidential Library coming to U Chicago. Maybe that is comforting. Maybe that feeds your conclusions about how broad The Conspiracy is. All of which is irrelevant except that you can take my word, if you like, that he is neither a pushover nor a hired hand. The same, of course, can be said for all the members of Obama's special commission. In my view, the question on the table is means and ends. I observe an American public that is trending toward ever more risk aversion. If my observation is correct, then you know well that it will concentrate power because risk aversion begets a demand for absolute safety requires absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If I may quote another man I hold in personal regard, Joel Brenner's (Google him, too) insight is this: During the Cold War, our enemies were few and we knew who they were. The technologies used by Soviet military and intelligence agencies were invented by those agencies. Today, our adversaries are less awesomely powerful than the Soviet Union, but they are many and often hidden. That means we must find them before we can listen to them. Equally important, virtually every government on Earth, including our own, has abandoned the practice of relying on government-developed technologies. Instead they rely on commercial off-the-shelf, or COTS, technologies. They do it because no government can compete with the head-spinning advances emerging from the private sector, and no government can afford to try. When NSA wanted to collect intelligence on the Soviet government and military, the agency had to steal or break the encryption used by them and nobody else. The migration to COTS changed that. If NSA now wants to collect against a foreign general's or terorist's communications, it must break the same encryption you and I use on our own devices... That's why NSA would want to break the encryption used on every one of those media. If it couldn't, any terrorist in Chicago, Kabul, or Cologne would simply use a Blackberry or send messages on Yahoo! But therein lies a policy dilemma, because NSA could decrypt almost any private conversation. The distinction between capabilities and actual practices is more critical than ever... Like it or not, the dilemma can be resolved only through oversight mechanisms that are publicly understood and trusted -- but are not themselves ... transparent. I fear we are on the edge of a rat-hole here. I forwarded Geoff's remarks as they are relevant, timely, and speak to the absence of simplistic nostrums in such matters, both because of the rising popular / political demand for comfort-and-safety and because the technologies that those charged with delivering comfort and safety use are COTS technologies. And dual use. Personally, I think of surveillance as just another tax, which you may safely assume is said through clenched libertarian cum Tea Party teeth. --dan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 09:25 PM, Dan Geer wrote:
you can take my word, if you like
No offense meant to you personally Dan, because I don't know you, but- I don't trust the word of anyone from In-Q-Tel in matters such as these. -Shelley
Responding to various,
Google up Geoff Stone; he's a Constitutional lawyer, clerked for Brennan, was Dean of the Law School and then Provost of U Chicago. His relationship with President Obama may well result in Obama's Presidential Library coming to U Chicago. Maybe that is comforting. Maybe that feeds your conclusions about how broad The Conspiracy is.
All of which is irrelevant except that you can take my word, if you like, that he is neither a pushover nor a hired hand. The same, of course, can be said for all the members of Obama's special commission. In my view, the question on the table is means and ends. I observe an American public that is trending toward ever more risk aversion. If my observation is correct, then you know well that it will concentrate power because risk aversion begets a demand for absolute safety requires absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If I may quote another man I hold in personal regard, Joel Brenner's (Google him, too) insight is this:
During the Cold War, our enemies were few and we knew who they were. The technologies used by Soviet military and intelligence agencies were invented by those agencies. Today, our adversaries are less awesomely powerful than the Soviet Union, but they are many and often hidden. That means we must find them before we can listen to them. Equally important, virtually every government on Earth, including our own, has abandoned the practice of relying on government-developed technologies. Instead they rely on commercial off-the-shelf, or COTS, technologies. They do it because no government can compete with the head-spinning advances emerging from the private sector, and no government can afford to try. When NSA wanted to collect intelligence on the Soviet government and military, the agency had to steal or break the encryption used by them and nobody else. The migration to COTS changed that. If NSA now wants to collect against a foreign general's or terorist's communications, it must break the same encryption you and I use on our own devices... That's why NSA would want to break the encryption used on every one of those media. If it couldn't, any terrorist in Chicago, Kabul, or Cologne would simply use a Blackberry or send messages on Yahoo! But therein lies a policy dilemma, because NSA could decrypt almost any private conversation. The distinction between capabilities and actual practices is more critical than ever... Like it or not, the dilemma can be resolved only through oversight mechanisms that are publicly understood and trusted -- but are not themselves ... transparent.
I fear we are on the edge of a rat-hole here. I forwarded Geoff's remarks as they are relevant, timely, and speak to the absence of simplistic nostrums in such matters, both because of the rising popular / political demand for comfort-and-safety and because the technologies that those charged with delivering comfort and safety use are COTS technologies. And dual use. Personally, I think of surveillance as just another tax, which you may safely assume is said through clenched libertarian cum Tea Party teeth.
--dan
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:28 AM, <shelley@misanthropia.info> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 09:25 PM, Dan Geer wrote:
you can take my word, if you like
No offense meant to you personally Dan, because I don't know you, but- I don't trust the word of anyone from In-Q-Tel in matters such as these.
-Shelley
and a constitutional lawyer is in the fucking white house murdering no strike that assassinating us citizens on foreign soil with drone strikes and he is a fucking supposed scholar - the upper echelon just makes itself more and more illegitimate every second just think if all that brain power had wisdom and ethics and were building instead of destroying or exploiting others your qualifications for legitimacy is at question dan
Responding to various,
Google up Geoff Stone; he's a Constitutional lawyer, clerked for Brennan, was Dean of the Law School and then Provost of U Chicago. His relationship with President Obama may well result in Obama's Presidential Library coming to U Chicago. Maybe that is comforting. Maybe that feeds your conclusions about how broad The Conspiracy is.
All of which is irrelevant except that you can take my word, if you like, that he is neither a pushover nor a hired hand. The same, of course, can be said for all the members of Obama's special commission. In my view, the question on the table is means and ends. I observe an American public that is trending toward ever more risk aversion. If my observation is correct, then you know well that it will concentrate power because risk aversion begets a demand for absolute safety requires absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If I may quote another man I hold in personal regard, Joel Brenner's (Google him, too) insight is this:
During the Cold War, our enemies were few and we knew who they were. The technologies used by Soviet military and intelligence agencies were invented by those agencies. Today, our adversaries are less awesomely powerful than the Soviet Union, but they are many and often hidden. That means we must find them before we can listen to them. Equally important, virtually every government on Earth, including our own, has abandoned the practice of relying on government-developed technologies. Instead they rely on commercial off-the-shelf, or COTS, technologies. They do it because no government can compete with the head-spinning advances emerging from the private sector, and no government can afford to try. When NSA wanted to collect intelligence on the Soviet government and military, the agency had to steal or break the encryption used by them and nobody else. The migration to COTS changed that. If NSA now wants to collect against a foreign general's or terorist's communications, it must break the same encryption you and I use on our own devices... That's why NSA would want to break the encryption used on every one of those media. If it couldn't, any terrorist in Chicago, Kabul, or Cologne would simply use a Blackberry or send messages on Yahoo! But therein lies a policy dilemma, because NSA could decrypt almost any private conversation. The distinction between capabilities and actual practices is more critical than ever... Like it or not, the dilemma can be resolved only through oversight mechanisms that are publicly understood and trusted -- but are not themselves ... transparent.
I fear we are on the edge of a rat-hole here. I forwarded Geoff's remarks as they are relevant, timely, and speak to the absence of simplistic nostrums in such matters, both because of the rising popular / political demand for comfort-and-safety and because the technologies that those charged with delivering comfort and safety use are COTS technologies. And dual use. Personally, I think of surveillance as just another tax, which you may safely assume is said through clenched libertarian cum Tea Party teeth.
--dan
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
shelley@misanthropia.info writes: | On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 09:25 PM, Dan Geer wrote: | | >you can take my word, if you like | | No offense meant to you personally Dan, because I don't know you, but- I | don't trust the word of anyone from In-Q-Tel in matters such as these. | That is both perfectly fine and perfectly aligned with Geoff's remarks. --dan
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <dan@geer.org> wrote:
shelley@misanthropia.info writes: | On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 09:25 PM, Dan Geer wrote: | | >you can take my word, if you like | | No offense meant to you personally Dan, because I don't know you, but- I | don't trust the word of anyone from In-Q-Tel in matters such as these. |
That is both perfectly fine and perfectly aligned with Geoff's remarks.
thats cute dan but no it is not aligned with what he said he did not say 'dont trust me' total bullshit
--dan
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On 04/04/14 06:25, dan@geer.org wrote:
I fear we are on the edge of a rat-hole here. I forwarded Geoff's remarks as they are relevant, timely, and speak to the absence of simplistic nostrums in such matters, both because of the rising popular / political demand for comfort-and-safety and because the technologies that those charged with delivering comfort and safety use are COTS technologies. And dual use. Personally, I think of surveillance as just another tax, which you may safely assume is said through clenched libertarian cum Tea Party teeth.
Hi Dan, I like your idea of comparing being spied upon to paying tax. The similarities are striking: Like tax, I prefer to pay the least amount. Like tax, I can hire a professional that knows tax law inside out to find the (legal) loopholes. Like tax, it should be discussed in public. Like tax, society should strive to minimize the tax-burden. Like tax, we don't tax those to whom it doesn't apply. Regards, Guido.
On 4/4/2014 12:25 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Responding to various,
Google up Geoff Stone; he's a Constitutional lawyer, clerked for Brennan, was Dean of the Law School and then Provost of U Chicago. His relationship with President Obama may well result in Obama's Presidential Library coming to U Chicago. Maybe that is comforting. Maybe that feeds your conclusions about how broad The Conspiracy is.
.......
--dan
So, because not only has he played 'in the system', but in fact excelled 'in the system', he is meant to be viewed as a MORE trustworthy source? Conclusions, fed. Next, work on feeding the homeless....
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 01:56 PM, dan@geer.org wrote:
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
You can probably stop with the NSA appologists propaganda, April Fools was yesterday. Alfie -- Alfie John alfiej@fastmail.fm
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 08:39 PM, Alfie John wrote:
You can probably stop with the NSA appologists propaganda, April Fools was yesterday.
Ha! That was my first thought, too. My second thought was, "I wonder what the spooks have on this guy?" It sounds like it was written under duress, like the fake "confessions" they make POWs give.
From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.
On 04/02/2014 09:56 PM, dan@geer.org wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
On 04/03/14 06:56, Douglas Lucas wrote:
From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.
There are some who think this is quite clever. Quoted from a comment by user 'decrement' on techdirt [1]: There is a bit of genius behind Geoffrey Stone's approach. It is far too easy when being blasted by public and press opinion to simply circle the wagons and ignore the criticism. To simply resist the opposing viewpoint. To trivialize it. What is the ideal result one can hope for going forward? In my opinion that result looks like opening doors to tighten privacy laws and ending some of these unfettered metadata collection activities. By reinforcing to the employees at the NSA that they are doing a good job, and protecting the country, then placing blame outside the NSA George diffuses the personal nature of the argument. This allows employees to be more receptive to the message, and plants the seed that accepting change is not equated with a defeat. In terms of realizing a true significant modification of these programs, planting this seed is brilliant move. Continuing to water it may grow additional support for these ideas from within. Splitting hairs by demonizing the entire organization, as reprehensible as past actions might be, is a certain way to maximize resistance. I like the focus on "what is the desired outcome?" rather than reactionary outrage. end quote. Guido. 1: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140401/17575126774/member-intelligence-re...
Dnia środa, 2 kwietnia 2014 23:56:50 Douglas Lucas pisze:
From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.
Indeed. Regardless, however, some part of this diagnosis is spot-on: NSA should *not* have these authorities in the first place. I'm fine with Executive, Congress, FISA getting flak for these. And I'm quite certain that NSA has no way of white-washing themselves now. -- Pozdr rysiek
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia środa, 2 kwietnia 2014 23:56:50 Douglas Lucas pisze:
From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.
Indeed. Regardless, however, some part of this diagnosis is spot-on: NSA should *not* have these authorities in the first place.
I'm fine with Executive, Congress, FISA getting flak for these.
And I'm quite certain that NSA has no way of white-washing themselves now.
good sir you have no idea of the midwest thought control machine at work in the good ole u$ of aahhh white washing? > HA those good ole rotten souled boys also down in texass never get any tax breaks or ask for special privileges r nothin and the nsa those poor souls they have no toys to play with and they are so humble they never asked for any toys either or nothing they dont even have any spoons to eat food with cause they are humble and good they keep their mouths shut and just sit quietly never moving and they dont want any money either cause they are jesuit priests ya know that never even heard the word sadomasochism let alone utter it or live it
-- Pozdr rysiek
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
On Apr 2, 2014, at 21:56, dan@geer.org wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
This just smacks of an apologetics piece; maybe even something the NSA themselves might write. Nobody but the most willfully delusional apologist could possibly look at the history of this agency, especially but not limited to the last year, and believe that the NSA is an agency with "good intentions". Self-serving, corporate and political protectionists, yes. Good intentions, nobody really believes that. Lastly, isn't it a little (or a lot) arrogant to believe that an agency that's fooled Congress and the President, lied to the American people, and undermined the security of worldwide communications, couldn't fool you too? What did he think? That they would simply open up and fess ip to their abuse because they respect who he is? Thank you, Ft. Meade for the latest comedy show. Cypher
Stone's is a good statement which correctly places responsibility on three-branch policy and oversight of NSA, a military unit obliged to obey command of civilians however bizarre and politically self-serving. ODNI and NSA have been inviting a series of critics and journalists to discussions. Most have resulted in statements similar to Stone's. No such discussions were held after 9/11. Incorrect to compare NSA to rogue, dirty work, civilian-led CIA which will attack the three branches if riled. That is the blackmail looming since 1947. Greater public oversight of the three-branches is needed, for they are the rogue, dirty work, civilian-led three LS, protecty by highest secrecy. If this can be helped by these invited discussions and statements, that would be a true advance beyond mere futile debate so far generated by shallow journalisitic reporting and polemics. Release of far more of Snowden's documents will be needed for this to happen, hopefully the whole wad by a means that will put the technology in the hands of those who can understand it. So far, the journalists have released only the most useful to arouse indignation and refuse to release what could make a lasting difference. Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference. At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, you wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:42 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF? this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, you wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told- the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net> wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness why do you frame things emotionally - i have thoughts you know umn logic? the careerist journalists laura poitras et al are capitalistic in every way - exploitive serious fucking white ownership distortion fucked up shit > nobody 'owns' anything she fucking slapped a copyright on the end of her recording of snowden in hong kong and on mannings providence statement she put a cc with attribution - fuck off mannings words are not yours to slap your fucking name on -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2014 02:48 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net <mailto:tpb-crypto@laposte.net>> wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist. A capitalist sees everything as a product that will either further his desire for success or hinder it. An idealist sees everything as a mission fitting within their narrow agenda. A capitalist has much more incentive to provide a good product (correct, accurate, information) than an idealist who's sole goal is to further an agenda. Both have their uses though and both can be manipulated to good and bad ends.
the careerist journalists laura poitras et al are capitalistic in every way - exploitive
I disagree. The careerist journalists are "crony capitalists" in every way. They know that, regardless of the accuracy of their information, the 'other side of the coin' will smooth things over and keep the public hooked on an inferior product. That's not a true capitalist. That's one of my main arguments with socialists and other non-capitalist believers: they point to our current system and say 'see, it's exploitive and hurts people!' and it does. But that's not a true capitalist system. Will we ever actually have one? Doubtful. But what we have now is definitely not a good example. Cypher -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTPb3RAAoJEFuutbL6JoJrreMP/2KZxGQREZXNWS7Gn1ptqY5N zccAmaF7qqTsF24fTCrwQsTR7YdxyCkSWNS6pOI0zNKYGJbTaGAeRj/WEc96vw4H zIJyIqFACM8ZGP1VAGnMigw9jWBETOADfH+xY9ifgna/hh+C+PRLWkwYJvMbmMJX mrbrQhBV2LAzl2XTmQBRs5NBZsxbwD9E0FXBRJjQD6AJ9GX+caP4ZJqaDK0Wur2w mC5YYTa4d49v8/rxQ2u3uOBZr2pdmUcNQNX8wYf5uDk57TYXP/7fyuQtaTK96Jox O/CE+3RIk1b1sjOrwz9xkiO9Vug42p+YzPv4q3WcjNao/H8l1zaIMc6hP5vrhhEv 6jAuDH3tU4IkIULmt9VZWy62JuHN2u9PV039dUINFbmlWWGHxFLh7KdYfvJBjx4D R8ykVdo+ROmpVRyB4QmsbtiyQ4Lur7AaCAlMSpITjVlF2sraDbdO3HfHDhnHIaKc xuAtAs09Gqtmx7Omk6YSd1GugDjIHGmOApIbMdfFgV6weo3VsK/c0qsmTWv9dgH6 LNHBkcNDkfCxiPemzrzqnIKwfBGan2HqiFGff9K0ATjFuK/2Rb+xDtTwwfv2sAbs ohuhrA5A0MHqryXJDEFaP5bv+zHoRd/I7V08hijxTLKo/0VdCR89R8GAs5eOYBjj nQffL5/0Ikn7v95ez7z7 =zHw7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Cypher <cypher@cpunk.us> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 04/03/2014 02:48 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net <mailto:tpb-crypto@laposte.net>> wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist.
i am a fucking anarchist which by the words you use in your writing that point to your low level concepts - you probably have no clue about you are a capitalist - making frames for others to fit your fucking lame ass argument - pathetic
A capitalist sees everything as a product that will either further his desire for success or hinder it. An idealist sees everything as a mission fitting within their narrow agenda. A capitalist has much more incentive to provide a good product (correct, accurate, information) than an idealist who's sole goal is to further an agenda. Both have their uses though and both can be manipulated to good and bad ends.
an anarchist DOES NOT generally have one goal - capitalists think that way anarchists are node based thinkers capitalist are monolithic thinkers and often frame things in a dualistic or black and white manner which is very christian religion in form and thought pattern capitalism is an economic model that has severe ramifications for society it is no different than having a monarch really there is a degree of difference regarding poverty but ... i heard today that if you are dying of cancer in uganda you have a 10% chance of having access to morphine ... they give cancer patients paracetamol ... thats your great capitalism i find it disgusting
the careerist journalists laura poitras et al are capitalistic in every way - exploitive
I disagree. The careerist journalists are "crony capitalists" in every way.
listen i am an activist journalist making money / becoming famous like them off of journalism in the way they do it is not ok with me its not how i would ever in a million years do my work
They know that, regardless of the accuracy of their information, the 'other side of the coin' will smooth things over and keep the public hooked on an inferior product. That's not a true capitalist.
i think your an idealist actually 'true capitalism' thats a theory
That's one of my main arguments with socialists and other non-capitalist believers:
BELIEVERS????????? LMAO i dont believe in belief that is religious
they point to our current system and say 'see, it's exploitive and hurts people!' and it does. But that's not a true capitalist system. Will we ever actually have one? Doubtful. But what we have now is definitely not a good example.
i dont think you understand that capitalism is well beyond an economy - watch naomi klein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4 with capitalism the iraq invasion happened within its frame black sites torture sites around the globe where conducted within the frame of capitalism > gitmo 'lives' inside the frame of capitalism i dont think you understand anarchy or anarchistic thought processies at all
Cypher -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTPb3RAAoJEFuutbL6JoJrreMP/2KZxGQREZXNWS7Gn1ptqY5N zccAmaF7qqTsF24fTCrwQsTR7YdxyCkSWNS6pOI0zNKYGJbTaGAeRj/WEc96vw4H zIJyIqFACM8ZGP1VAGnMigw9jWBETOADfH+xY9ifgna/hh+C+PRLWkwYJvMbmMJX mrbrQhBV2LAzl2XTmQBRs5NBZsxbwD9E0FXBRJjQD6AJ9GX+caP4ZJqaDK0Wur2w mC5YYTa4d49v8/rxQ2u3uOBZr2pdmUcNQNX8wYf5uDk57TYXP/7fyuQtaTK96Jox O/CE+3RIk1b1sjOrwz9xkiO9Vug42p+YzPv4q3WcjNao/H8l1zaIMc6hP5vrhhEv 6jAuDH3tU4IkIULmt9VZWy62JuHN2u9PV039dUINFbmlWWGHxFLh7KdYfvJBjx4D R8ykVdo+ROmpVRyB4QmsbtiyQ4Lur7AaCAlMSpITjVlF2sraDbdO3HfHDhnHIaKc xuAtAs09Gqtmx7Omk6YSd1GugDjIHGmOApIbMdfFgV6weo3VsK/c0qsmTWv9dgH6 LNHBkcNDkfCxiPemzrzqnIKwfBGan2HqiFGff9K0ATjFuK/2Rb+xDtTwwfv2sAbs ohuhrA5A0MHqryXJDEFaP5bv+zHoRd/I7V08hijxTLKo/0VdCR89R8GAs5eOYBjj nQffL5/0Ikn7v95ez7z7 =zHw7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 04/03/2014 03:49 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist.
i am a fucking anarchist which by the words you use in your writing that point to your low level concepts - you probably have no clue about
you are a capitalist - making frames for others to fit your fucking lame ass argument - pathetic
Actually, Cari, I've done a pretty extensive foray into Anarchism. It's an interesting but, IMHO, completely unworkable system populated by people who dream of a better, freer world, but have no chance of actually creating it - not now at least. What turned me off about Anarchism were people like you. People who waved their moral superiority flag every chance they got and assumed that anyone who supported a different view than theirs was ignorant or didn't understand what Anarchy is. In a lot of cases, Anarchists are their own worst enemy.
A capitalist sees everything as a product that will either further his desire for success or hinder it. An idealist sees everything as a mission fitting within their narrow agenda. A capitalist has much more incentive to provide a good product (correct, accurate, information) than an idealist who's sole goal is to further an agenda. Both have their uses though and both can be manipulated to good and bad ends.
an anarchist DOES NOT generally have one goal - capitalists think that way anarchists are node based thinkers capitalist are monolithic thinkers and often frame things in a dualistic or black and white manner which is very christian religion in form and thought pattern
capitalism is an economic model that has severe ramifications for society it is no different than having a monarch really there is a degree of difference regarding poverty but ... i heard today that if you are dying of cancer in uganda you have a 10% chance of having access to morphine ... they give cancer patients paracetamol ... thats your great capitalism i find it disgusting
Actually, that /isn't/ capitalism. Why do you think what you read is
Well, Cari, from what I've seen from the Anarchist community, the main goal that anarchist have is to abolish the state. This, of course, is a means to an end (the end being personal freedom) but the goal seems to be nearly single-minded focus on abolishing the state. And yes, I know some anarchists will say 'some of us simply ignore the state' and that's true. But, in reality, the main 'collective' goal (and I use that term loosely) is to abolish the state. To confirm this, just talk to any anarchist and ask them what the biggest problem to humanity is. Most will stay 'the state'. How do you solve it? 'Work to abolish the state'. Seems pretty single minded to me. But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan. I admit I probably don't know as much about the philosophy as you do. But, instead of just angrily cursing, why not try to educate me? I know that's a bit harder than angry arm-waving and cursing but it's probably more productive. the case? Maybe it's because of deals cut between governments and corporations? Do you know what we call that intertwining? No, we don't call it capitalism. We call is /fascism/.
the careerist journalists laura poitras et al are capitalistic in every way - exploitive
I disagree. The careerist journalists are "crony capitalists" in every way.
listen i am an activist journalist making money / becoming famous like them off of journalism in the way they do it is not ok with me its not how i would ever in a million years do my work
And /that/ is one of the great things about capitalism: you can try different things. You don't have to be confined to one narrow model. You don't agree with it? Great! Go do something your way and nobody is likely to stop you (except the predatory crony capitalists, but I think we've established those aren't real capitalists, right?)
They know that, regardless of the accuracy of their information, the 'other side of the coin' will smooth things over and keep the public hooked on an inferior product. That's not a true capitalist.
i think your an idealist actually 'true capitalism' thats a theory
Perhaps I am. Just like a Utopian anarchistic society is a theory that's never been proven. It's a different way of thinking, each with positives and negatives. I think we're probably /both/ idealists in our own ways.
That's one of my main arguments with socialists and other non-capitalist believers:
BELIEVERS????????? LMAO
i dont believe in belief that is religious
You don't believe in the power of your anarchistic philosophy? Hmm, perhaps that's the problem then! I assume, being a journalist, you understand that words have multiple meanings and we use them withing 'contexts'. Using the word 'believe' in the context I did doesn't have religious connotations at all. But I bet you know that. It looks like you are upset and just lashing out at everything because we don't agree. That's alright. I've seen your posts here and know you're more intelligent than that. So, yes, you're a 'believer' or...at least...you should be.
they point to our current system and say 'see, it's exploitive and hurts people!' and it does. But that's not a true capitalist system. Will we ever actually have one? Doubtful. But what we have now is definitely not a good example.
i dont think you understand that capitalism is well beyond an economy - watch naomi klein
Oh I understand it very well. I suspect it's you, who's obviously stuck within a very narrow worldview, who may not understand it. I've read Ms. Klein and I like a lot of her work - I don't agree with all of it, but I like it. But you know as well as I do that she comes at the topic with a bias. Also, from what I've read, her main beef seems to be with globalization and the influence corporations have on governments and, thus, the people. Remember, we've already covered this: it's not capitalism but /fascism/ when you have that. Do you have any thing in particular by Ms. Klein you'd like me to read that may help 'educate' me? I'd be happy to give it a go. So far, I've only read "No Logo", "The Take", and "The Shock Doctrine". Anything else I should pick up?
Yep, saw this video series. Brilliant woman, great book. Still talking largely about fascism and not capitalism. I mean, sure, she uses the /word/ 'capitalism' but that's not what she's describing. She's talking fascism.
with capitalism the iraq invasion happened within its frame
black sites torture sites around the globe where conducted within the frame of capitalism > gitmo 'lives' inside the frame of capitalism
So, do you believe that the horrible things that happened in Iraq and GITMO wouldn't have happened if the corporations weren't involved? I agree that they probably wouldn't have happened on such a /massive/ scale simply because their would have been a manpower shortage but I suspect some of those 'true blue' soldiers wouldn't have had much of a problem picking up a chemical light and sticking it up someone's ass...or raping them. Were the naked pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib capitalism at work too? Oh, wait, those were soldiers, not businessment trying to make money.
i dont think you understand anarchy or anarchistic thought processies at all
I certainly admit that I don't understand it as much as /you/ do or many others who spend a good amount of their time researching and reading anarchistic thought. But I do have a good understanding of it. However, feel free to point me in the direction of some good educational material. I'll read it happily! I like exploring different thoughts. I actually /like/ the idea of anarchy, just like I like much of the ideas of socialism. But they both, IMHO, fall a bit off the mark. That might be an educational thing that can be fixed though so feel free to point me in the right direction. No sarcasm intended here, I am open to learning! Cypher -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTPdEAAAoJEFuutbL6JoJrTmkP/2sH2LYqKN620/tkbZOT0fjD /JBsbumLknFOUL7ZpYcfa+Nh+2SOLTOFDX7GxuUckbHnkUtjAZgrXKcB+aoMYbMp NOZrufIp4lcOZo7a/5DWRlU4gYRH0FtYxkpDP06lLxWDHFQ0vCujflrifGiMidPU Ln4ATUy/wcT+OBDk+l3bWvoH3N9M2HQ9Ib/VaIcoyK6QOKLCKlMuKu+ft2PPK1nz n9NPFyEFFkLzs7uJZh+s0UYPHAJSJbB0pd/IBQ3NA3U8DfJBbQmH9SWOmNTFTBdo z8CFCem4smbUvyn208HQ1dyDArY400GnOx2Y20bADB+YO0g62CSmKEshPhPSRmDG bI4LnyUICrJ0rRKU/FzQLCTEtWNeRGAY8JhbMgQVShpqfcWl4TTL745b+FEk04QO Ikpnb2k+1zuGa+lDi4Xp9Lv0fxSW3W0j+w+t9o+u+0K/fOWkF7Gx/uB9G0/oynOb /sFMsvaUOcx7a879bHa88rr4mH5L5puCjTOeAUBkyC39jxcTRFvLEw4Sai1Q9mEY ZODFhA1BSgVJungKYLpqevIIyVlsKJW9LK8+ov8i2WDF2ygq1EqI+3iOwoKxFfmC EO9XdHUYtGtPsQKqh5ldl7rGQWYxu3J+FatmVhwGKCEdVer+yP/f5gT1h4SjrHVp x67TKKhVf3r2CYcZyZmw =gX6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Cypher <cypher@cpunk.us> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 04/03/2014 03:49 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist.
i am a fucking anarchist which by the words you use in your writing that point to your low level concepts - you probably have no clue about
you are a capitalist - making frames for others to fit your fucking lame ass argument - pathetic
Actually, Cari, I've done a pretty extensive foray into Anarchism. It's an interesting but, IMHO, completely unworkable system populated by people who dream of a better, freer world, but have no chance of actually creating it - not now at least.
that shows how little you know about it for you to think of it on such monolithic terms - it already works is working in many many places and factions so...
What turned me off about Anarchism were people like you. People who waved their moral superiority flag every chance they got and assumed that anyone who supported a different view than theirs was ignorant or didn't understand what Anarchy is. In a lot of cases, Anarchists are their own worst enemy.
your not an anarchist what was your little 'foray' - so french - do tell 1902 chicago? for your information i am a provocateur that you cannot see that again exclaims your lack of knowledge/care
A capitalist sees everything as a product that will either further his desire for success or hinder it. An idealist sees everything as a mission fitting within their narrow agenda. A capitalist has much more incentive to provide a good product (correct, accurate, information) than an idealist who's sole goal is to further an agenda. Both have their uses though and both can be manipulated to good and bad ends.
an anarchist DOES NOT generally have one goal - capitalists think that way anarchists are node based thinkers capitalist are monolithic thinkers and often frame things in a dualistic or black and white manner which is very christian religion in form and thought pattern
Well, Cari, from what I've seen from the Anarchist community, the main goal that anarchist have is to abolish the state. This, of course, is a means to an end (the end being personal freedom) but the goal seems to be nearly single-minded focus on abolishing the state.
And yes, I know some anarchists will say 'some of us simply ignore the state' and that's true. But, in reality, the main 'collective' goal (and I use that term loosely) is to abolish the state. To confirm this, just talk to any anarchist and ask them what the biggest problem to humanity is. Most will stay 'the state'. How do you solve it? 'Work to abolish the state'. Seems pretty single minded to me.
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan. I admit I probably don't know as much about the philosophy as you do. But, instead of just angrily cursing, why not try to educate me? I know that's a bit harder than angry arm-waving and cursing but it's probably more productive.
kool thanks
its not just about the state - there are very different types of anarchists - that is part of the quality of it all the form is open - its like the concept of opensource you are right to a degree it is about personal freedom but that still frames as against the state so i would say it is more about not imposing your will on others instead wanting others to be authentically themselves and 'believe' it or not that has a lot to do with optimal production - each person has a quality like no other ... because some people have qualities that are harmful to others of course there are huge issues of justice within this model and often we are asked about justice - a lot of the community thinks on the level of restorative justice which has models in pockets of society all over the world - one example is in ecuador - the natives have a different form of justice when a crime is committed the gov police are called but then the decision is made with the community what will happen next - will the perp be taken to the government justice system or will the community deal with them - if the community deals with them then they will be asked to perform certain tasks in the community to make up for their misdeeds - some even think it is a good idea for the person to come up with the tasks themselves... look up direct democracy - there is often within our model questions regarding scalability that is often where the rubber meets the road for people - we dont know how that works exactly as it is not been sent into praxis enough but we have developed spokes councils and what happens is rotation of all aspects - all members are rotated so that it is not representative - now zizek has complained about our model that he doesnt want to participate in this kind of constant meetings he doesnt want to deal with other stuff besides his scholarly intellectual stuff ... i dont think it is a problem no one is forced to be a part - there is just no exclusion - inclusion is not mandated - so zizek is kinda not knowledgable there - what i really like is that people that work in say sanitation do a report back about what is going on to everyone and people that work in say media can be knowledgeable about what is happening in that field (there can be people that actually work in both fields of couse) but then the people in the field of media can be alerted if there is something they can do to help the field of sanitation in some way - get information out about that they need help with this project etc... information flow .... anyway i dont want to write a book here mayb listen to this - yes theres a big star and david graeber capitalist but it has real info too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIv7MYS8JaE particularly i would point you to the theories of proudhon, bakunin and kropotkin
capitalism is an economic model that has severe ramifications
for society it is no different than having a monarch really there is a degree of difference regarding poverty but ... i heard today that if you are dying of cancer in uganda you have a 10% chance of having access to morphine ... they give cancer patients paracetamol ... thats your great capitalism i find it disgusting
Actually, that /isn't/ capitalism. Why do you think what you read is the case? Maybe it's because of deals cut between governments and corporations? Do you know what we call that intertwining? No, we don't call it capitalism. We call is /fascism/.
i call it capitalism when the assistant attorney general of the united states says they made a decision not to try to convict the banks of fraud because there would be an economic hit to the u$ of a ... that is capitalism in praxis today i gotta go more later... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the careerist journalists laura poitras et al are capitalistic in every way - exploitive
I disagree. The careerist journalists are "crony capitalists" in every way.
listen i am an activist journalist making money / becoming famous like them off of journalism in the way they do it is not ok with me its not how i would ever in a million years do my work
And /that/ is one of the great things about capitalism: you can try different things. You don't have to be confined to one narrow model. You don't agree with it? Great! Go do something your way and nobody is likely to stop you (except the predatory crony capitalists, but I think we've established those aren't real capitalists, right?)
They know that, regardless of the accuracy of their information, the 'other side of the coin' will smooth things over and keep the public hooked on an inferior product. That's not a true capitalist.
i think your an idealist actually 'true capitalism' thats a theory
Perhaps I am. Just like a Utopian anarchistic society is a theory that's never been proven. It's a different way of thinking, each with positives and negatives. I think we're probably /both/ idealists in our own ways.
That's one of my main arguments with socialists and other non-capitalist believers:
BELIEVERS????????? LMAO
i dont believe in belief that is religious
You don't believe in the power of your anarchistic philosophy? Hmm, perhaps that's the problem then! I assume, being a journalist, you understand that words have multiple meanings and we use them withing 'contexts'. Using the word 'believe' in the context I did doesn't have religious connotations at all. But I bet you know that. It looks like you are upset and just lashing out at everything because we don't agree. That's alright. I've seen your posts here and know you're more intelligent than that. So, yes, you're a 'believer' or...at least...you should be.
they point to our current system and say 'see, it's exploitive and hurts people!' and it does. But that's not a true capitalist system. Will we ever actually have one? Doubtful. But what we have now is definitely not a good example.
i dont think you understand that capitalism is well beyond an economy - watch naomi klein
Oh I understand it very well. I suspect it's you, who's obviously stuck within a very narrow worldview, who may not understand it. I've read Ms. Klein and I like a lot of her work - I don't agree with all of it, but I like it. But you know as well as I do that she comes at the topic with a bias. Also, from what I've read, her main beef seems to be with globalization and the influence corporations have on governments and, thus, the people. Remember, we've already covered this: it's not capitalism but /fascism/ when you have that.
Do you have any thing in particular by Ms. Klein you'd like me to read that may help 'educate' me? I'd be happy to give it a go. So far, I've only read "No Logo", "The Take", and "The Shock Doctrine". Anything else I should pick up?
Yep, saw this video series. Brilliant woman, great book. Still talking largely about fascism and not capitalism. I mean, sure, she uses the /word/ 'capitalism' but that's not what she's describing. She's talking fascism.
with capitalism the iraq invasion happened within its frame
black sites torture sites around the globe where conducted within the frame of capitalism > gitmo 'lives' inside the frame of capitalism
So, do you believe that the horrible things that happened in Iraq and GITMO wouldn't have happened if the corporations weren't involved? I agree that they probably wouldn't have happened on such a /massive/ scale simply because their would have been a manpower shortage but I suspect some of those 'true blue' soldiers wouldn't have had much of a problem picking up a chemical light and sticking it up someone's ass...or raping them. Were the naked pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib capitalism at work too? Oh, wait, those were soldiers, not businessment trying to make money.
i dont think you understand anarchy or anarchistic thought processies at all
I certainly admit that I don't understand it as much as /you/ do or many others who spend a good amount of their time researching and reading anarchistic thought. But I do have a good understanding of it. However, feel free to point me in the direction of some good educational material. I'll read it happily! I like exploring different thoughts. I actually /like/ the idea of anarchy, just like I like much of the ideas of socialism. But they both, IMHO, fall a bit off the mark. That might be an educational thing that can be fixed though so feel free to point me in the right direction. No sarcasm intended here, I am open to learning!
Cypher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTPdEAAAoJEFuutbL6JoJrTmkP/2sH2LYqKN620/tkbZOT0fjD /JBsbumLknFOUL7ZpYcfa+Nh+2SOLTOFDX7GxuUckbHnkUtjAZgrXKcB+aoMYbMp NOZrufIp4lcOZo7a/5DWRlU4gYRH0FtYxkpDP06lLxWDHFQ0vCujflrifGiMidPU Ln4ATUy/wcT+OBDk+l3bWvoH3N9M2HQ9Ib/VaIcoyK6QOKLCKlMuKu+ft2PPK1nz n9NPFyEFFkLzs7uJZh+s0UYPHAJSJbB0pd/IBQ3NA3U8DfJBbQmH9SWOmNTFTBdo z8CFCem4smbUvyn208HQ1dyDArY400GnOx2Y20bADB+YO0g62CSmKEshPhPSRmDG bI4LnyUICrJ0rRKU/FzQLCTEtWNeRGAY8JhbMgQVShpqfcWl4TTL745b+FEk04QO Ikpnb2k+1zuGa+lDi4Xp9Lv0fxSW3W0j+w+t9o+u+0K/fOWkF7Gx/uB9G0/oynOb /sFMsvaUOcx7a879bHa88rr4mH5L5puCjTOeAUBkyC39jxcTRFvLEw4Sai1Q9mEY ZODFhA1BSgVJungKYLpqevIIyVlsKJW9LK8+ov8i2WDF2ygq1EqI+3iOwoKxFfmC EO9XdHUYtGtPsQKqh5ldl7rGQWYxu3J+FatmVhwGKCEdVer+yP/f5gT1h4SjrHVp x67TKKhVf3r2CYcZyZmw =gX6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all. -- Patrick
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc> wrote:
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all.
why?
-- Patrick
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 04/04/2014 09:24 AM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all.
Good response, Patrick. But how do you think we're going to get to that? Without concerted action, and it has to be more than everybody doing their own thing IMHO, how will that goal be achieved? I hear a lot of anarchists saying what you say and it's a fantastic goal. But how do we get there? - -- Want to communicate with me privately? Find my PGP public key here: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5BAEB5B2FA26826B Fingerprint: 6728 40CE 35EE 0BF3 2E15 C7CC 5BAE B5B2 FA26 826B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTPxUfAAoJEFuutbL6JoJrRLoP/RiWKL2JaXTJiYwhWvjw6xM9 mzkm8SbQInZCEvqJ4FW82Zg//tOkrK9a/kvvRQCb2Y5MdxB5Ezkrt5qm2GwLzUJX xNl1+nl68J6BJzxjpqVmrf5zZfllLffLcU0084ajqGXY/rilzmCENB8F/epxmiR6 +cVdM9NXl953chNB9zz48ZpNKCe/mrz0CWPKUW4BEWzajp6r5iIcves3f78egLow nVWA+OQnQ0FBf78kMpn8MRnYf3EUA4KHXxzAo1DHbyWKGuykAcrzEnjCHE/7zOxi 21rhcUI7TT0S4G1hLmPDWIY3LgFFnV/CgRmsP3a1hF74i3vmccjYiRCDDINMxbet Rw3YRS94NhyfK3BJneAfOiGM55nnbki8MVlh42V/WWDYdBhWOqMvV3akTbnCkbaX 7fGy3ItnzyqUUjQa76Ywh+V0CZDlsMC/tnbFkAw44US7RGKCnzSe5OK47uXzsSwT 6KVEyEYPu8wHmrkB7u2zymKE5Ce/paizxDyMFEhbdwu0N47LbN728j7xgw8Zhbvj mIMnzHdRd8ZaGb9ccU8j1iGUUF1YMHCrrMB0ybtrzQHvyFSRT5ATeHpafX23w3bB xrgpbiO/ZL/52zwWzF2dbJMVzXdTbj3WRnMGMWKxKOmYQs9YJ7U8yLCCL/ETnAcL lToSMaLELVfi7QiyuIe8 =8+H4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cypher wrote, On 04/04/2014 04:25 PM:
On 04/04/2014 09:24 AM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all.
Good response, Patrick. But how do you think we're going to get to that? Without concerted action, and it has to be more than everybody doing their own thing IMHO, how will that goal be achieved? I hear a lot of anarchists saying what you say and it's a fantastic goal. But how do we get there?
An old friend of mine summed up the basic physics of the situation:
Massive enslavement is the norm because it is possible to derive sufficient revenue from it to pay the costs of maintaining it. As long as that existential fact is true it does not matter what most people think or want.
You mentioned that "concerted action" would have to be more than everybody doing their own thing. Not necessarily, if "doing your own thing" means conducting one's affairs in such a way that minimizes the net benefit to those who would restrict your freedom, while still providing a net benefit to yourself. That goes to the heart of my friend's point. He goes on to say that notions like "mass action" or "mass enlightenment" are just more collectivist drivel, and he's rather emphatic about it:
The orthodoxy is that all you have to do is teach most people the truth and they will throw off their chains, since the rulers depend for their power on fooling people into giving their consent. This is hogwash belied by all human history. It is only credible to people indoctrinated in the democratic myths that have arisen in the last 200 years reinforced by collectivist thinking.
It's all about the physics, though discussing the specifics can be delicate. -- Patrick
The book Binding Chaos by Heather Marsh, who ran WikiLeaks Central from 2010 to 2012, describes a system for governance using the Internet as a mass collaboration tool. Free, full text PDFs available from the landing page: http://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/binding-chaos/ The book describes using stigmergy for work, rather than time-wasting consensus or coercive hierarchy, approval economy instead of a financial system, control by user groups rather than democracy, and more. Douglas On 04/04/2014 03:25 PM, Cypher wrote:
On 04/04/2014 09:24 AM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all.
Good response, Patrick. But how do you think we're going to get to that? Without concerted action, and it has to be more than everybody doing their own thing IMHO, how will that goal be achieved? I hear a lot of anarchists saying what you say and it's a fantastic goal. But how do we get there?
i do need to read it but at face value - or what u pulled out - consensus is not a problem regarding time wasting - as the ideas of efficiency are capitalistic and massively overblown + often what seems efficient is just short term problem solving - leaving huge gaps for people to have to deal with later - the big problem with consensus is mob rule - just like the problem we have with supposed democracy in the representative manner prolific now On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Douglas Lucas <dal@riseup.net> wrote:
The book Binding Chaos by Heather Marsh, who ran WikiLeaks Central from 2010 to 2012, describes a system for governance using the Internet as a mass collaboration tool. Free, full text PDFs available from the landing page: http://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/binding-chaos/
The book describes using stigmergy for work, rather than time-wasting consensus or coercive hierarchy, approval economy instead of a financial system, control by user groups rather than democracy, and more.
Douglas
On 04/04/2014 03:25 PM, Cypher wrote:
On 04/04/2014 09:24 AM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
Cypher wrote, On 04/03/2014 05:22 PM:
But, please, instead of ranting and wild arm-waving, educate me if I am wrong. I would certainly /love/ to see a workable, large scale, anarchistic plan.
Please, no large scale plans, I beg you. I simply wish to see the emergent effects of countless individuals interacting with each other solely on the basis of mutual consent. That is all.
Good response, Patrick. But how do you think we're going to get to that? Without concerted action, and it has to be more than everybody doing their own thing IMHO, how will that goal be achieved? I hear a lot of anarchists saying what you say and it's a fantastic goal. But how do we get there?
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Message du 03/04/14 23:19 De : "Cari Machet" A : "Cypher" Copie à : "cpunks" Objet : Re: Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Cypher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 04/03/2014 02:48 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, > > > wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist.
i am a fucking anarchist which by the words you use in your writing that point to your low level concepts - you probably have no clue about
you are a capitalist - making frames for others to fit your fucking lame ass argument - pathetic
Cari, You have been making frames for others all along in your rants, why is it so unacceptable when someone else uses the same device on you? You are mixing our profession and your wishful thinking and opinions. The two must be separate. Your job is to report facts, not your personal opinions. The fact that you are not willing to do your job properly when compared to other journalists is what puts Laura Poitras ahead of you and makes her famous and rich ... and you green of envy. Remember to take your meds - made my capitalists - once in a while, we would all be thankful if you do.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:32 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net> wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 23:19 De : "Cari Machet" A : "Cypher" Copie à : "cpunks" Objet : Re: Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Cypher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 04/03/2014 02:48 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, > > > wrote:
Message du 03/04/14 16:54 De : "Cari Machet"
Not that journalists should be expected to make a lasting difference.
WTF?
this shit was posted on huffington post probably for those without ad blocker there was ad with bewbs on it next to the text
one more thing why do you assume to know the minds of the people that own the snowden data - they are capitalists - that is all
Do capitalists upset you?
CAPITALISTS have no concept of reality and are completely self serving yes that is upsetting to my sensibilities and consciousness
Which is *precisely* why I would trust information provided to me by a capitalist than that provided to me by an idealist.
i am a fucking anarchist which by the words you use in your writing that point to your low level concepts - you probably have no clue about
you are a capitalist - making frames for others to fit your fucking lame ass argument - pathetic
Cari,
You have been making frames for others all along in your rants, why is it so unacceptable when someone else uses the same device on you?
You are mixing our profession and your wishful thinking and opinions. The two must be separate. Your job is to report facts, not your personal opinions.
The fact that you are not willing to do your job properly when compared to other journalists is what puts Laura Poitras ahead of you and makes her famous and rich ... and you green of envy.
Remember to take your meds - made my capitalists - once in a while, we would all be thankful if you do.
when people have no argument they resort to name calling and character assassination - maybe you should ask more of yourself this level your on is really boring and predictable you dont know anything about journalism past mayb the stone age -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Dnia piątek, 4 kwietnia 2014 09:15:57 Cari Machet pisze:
when people have no argument they resort to name calling and character assassination (...)
...and then...
you dont know anything about journalism past mayb the stone age
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/612/974/1de.php -- Pozdr rysiek
fuck off rysiek its a really long thing to explain to someone the future of fucking journalism if they are that far back i mean i could just say look at medium or look at certain journo's i guess like asher wolfe - money is not the object this person is a capitalist thinker and they dont understand the ethics of journo within the structure of how a journo works - nor do i think they care to really understand the point i was making i was making an argument not just calling them bad names my argument is they dont know enough - prove me wrong rysiek..... fucker hehe On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:44 AM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia piątek, 4 kwietnia 2014 09:15:57 Cari Machet pisze:
when people have no argument they resort to name calling and character assassination (...)
...and then...
you dont know anything about journalism past mayb the stone age
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/612/974/1de.php
-- Pozdr rysiek
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Message du 04/04/14 13:36 De : "Cari Machet" fuck off rysiek its a really long thing to explain to someone the future of fucking journalism
Before the "future of journalism" there is the present and you are failing hard at it. If your future of journalism implies your ignorant opinion, I personally prefer another future, which can be shaped right now by keeping your crazy mind away from anything important.
if they are that far back i mean i could just say look at medium or look at certain journo's i guess like asher wolfe - money is not the object this person is a capitalist thinker
A bit of structured discourse or grammar studies would be a plus to your chances of getting a job.
and they dont understand the ethics of journo within the structure of how a journo works
Your "ethics" is merely your biased opinions, nothing more. Nobody needs it, sorry.
- nor do i think they care to really understand the point i was making
Crazy people are rather hard to understand. They make nonsensical phrases, they throw childish fits, they invent ethics that only exist in their minds, etc.
i was making an argument not just calling them bad names my argument is they dont know enough - prove me wrong rysiek..... fucker hehe
Yes, you were just calling bad names and clearly your "know enough" equals to "think crazy like me", which is a stupid argument not worth following. Not everyone is bipolar and depressed in this world. You fail hard as an agent provocateur.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:01 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net> wrote:
Message du 04/04/14 13:36 De : "Cari Machet" fuck off rysiek its a really long thing to explain to someone the future of fucking journalism
Before the "future of journalism" there is the present and you are failing hard at it. If your future of journalism implies your ignorant opinion, I personally prefer another future, which can be shaped right now by keeping your crazy mind away from anything important.
if they are that far back i mean i could just say look at medium or look at certain journo's i guess like asher wolfe - money is not the object this person is a capitalist thinker
A bit of structured discourse or grammar studies would be a plus to your chances of getting a job.
and they dont understand the ethics of journo within the structure of how a journo works
Your "ethics" is merely your biased opinions, nothing more. Nobody needs it, sorry.
- nor do i think they care to really understand the point i was making
Crazy people are rather hard to understand. They make nonsensical phrases, they throw childish fits, they invent ethics that only exist in their minds, etc.
i was making an argument not just calling them bad names my argument is they dont know enough - prove me wrong rysiek..... fucker hehe
Yes, you were just calling bad names and clearly your "know enough" equals to "think crazy like me", which is a stupid argument not worth following. Not everyone is bipolar and depressed in this world.
You fail hard as an agent provocateur.
if i am such a goddamn incomprehensible nothing why do you bother to argue with me at all or why can you even comprehend enough of it to argue? ouroboros please do some research into new more democratic forms of journalism - journalistic co-ops etc -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Message du 04/04/14 17:28 De : "Cari Machet" if i am such a goddamn incomprehensible nothing why do you bother to argue with me at all or why can you even comprehend enough of it to argue?
You keep feeling our inboxes with your nonsensical rants. In a more modern version of an old proverb: your finger tips are faster than your brain.
ouroboros
Incubus.
please do some research into new more democratic forms of journalism - journalistic co-ops etc
That's as old as pissing forwards.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:43 PM, <tpb-crypto@laposte.net> wrote:
Message du 04/04/14 17:28 De : "Cari Machet" if i am such a goddamn incomprehensible nothing why do you bother to argue with me at all or why can you even comprehend enough of it to argue?
You keep feeling our inboxes with your nonsensical rants. In a more modern version of an old proverb: your finger tips are faster than your brain.
i would never feel an inbox and am wholly against 'feeling inboxes' not down at all for that ever meow kitty kitty (is my insenuation made clear?)
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Message du 04/04/14 19:57 De : "Cari Machet"
i would never feel an inbox and am wholly against 'feeling inboxes' not down at all for that ever
meow kitty kitty (is my insenuation made clear?)
Maybe, one day typing correctors will work better, as of now you should be aware of this fact since you are so smart.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc> wrote:
Cari Machet wrote, On 04/03/2014 03:48 PM:
nobody 'owns' anything
Ownership is an exclusive right of use or disposal. If I wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna be in big trouble Lucy.
its a lie you tell yourself - you were told its true its not ever heard of eminent domain ? ever heard of israel? lets not even talk about your paycheck -- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Cari Machet wrote, On 04/04/2014 05:11 AM:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc <mailto:pc@loom.cc>> wrote:
Cari Machet wrote, On 04/03/2014 03:48 PM:
> nobody 'owns' anything
Ownership is an exclusive right of use or disposal. If I wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna be in big trouble Lucy.
its a lie you tell yourself - you were told its true its not
ever heard of eminent domain ?
ever heard of israel?
lets not even talk about your paycheck
Now THAT is a good point. I thought you were deriding the very concept of ownership. If you're saying that private property is such a good idea that maybe we should *try* it sometime, then I'm with you. -- Patrick
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc> wrote:
Cari Machet wrote, On 04/04/2014 05:11 AM:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Patrick Chkoreff <pc@loom.cc <mailto:pc@loom.cc>> wrote:
Cari Machet wrote, On 04/03/2014 03:48 PM:
> nobody 'owns' anything
Ownership is an exclusive right of use or disposal. If I wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna be in big trouble Lucy.
its a lie you tell yourself - you were told its true its not
ever heard of eminent domain ?
ever heard of israel?
lets not even talk about your paycheck
Now THAT is a good point. I thought you were deriding the very concept of ownership. If you're saying that private property is such a good idea that maybe we should *try* it sometime, then I'm with you.
o your funny there is actually a lot in common that libertarians and anarchists have but it is bent differently - i dont agree that there is scarcity and live in intense fear that i wont get lotsa stuff - i think we have abundance and the very idea of scarcity is a con game the elite and the autocrats feed everyone fr before they are born so that they can exploit them i find the houses that look like restaurants or hotels that i have seen in the suburbs that outline washington dc are repulsive and i find it repulsive that there are people that have no potable water on the planet and cannot read or write - i would rather people and everything were treated and thought of as more equal
-- Patrick
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Dnia piątek, 4 kwietnia 2014 15:20:19 Cari Machet pisze:
Now THAT is a good point. I thought you were deriding the very concept of ownership. If you're saying that private property is such a good idea that maybe we should *try* it sometime, then I'm with you.
o your funny
Wait, whose funny? I thought it's their funny. It's definitely not my funny... -- Pozdr rysiek
Cari wrote:
i dont agree that there is scarcity ... i think we have abundance and the very idea of scarcity is a con game the elite and the autocrats feed everyone fr before they are born so that they can exploit them
You may not believe in scarcity, but I know one thing for a fact. I have a limited amount of food in my refrigerator, and a limited tolerance for strangers in my house. You may not call that "scarcity" but it sure sounds like scarcity to me. So I'll say it again: if I wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna be in big trouble Lucy. -- Patrick
| You may not believe in scarcity, but I know one thing for a fact. I | have a limited amount of food in my refrigerator, and a limited | tolerance for strangers in my house. You may not call that "scarcity" | but it sure sounds like scarcity to me. So I'll say it again: if I | wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna | be in big trouble Lucy. And return the favor; Cari's kitchen is ostensibly at % whois Globalrevops.org ... Tech ID:CR106626965 Tech Name:Cari machet Tech Organization:carimachet Tech Street: 3123 vernon blvd Tech City:Astoria Tech State/Province:New York Tech Postal Code:11106 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.6466526434 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax: Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email:cari_machet@me.com
what a total fuck and completely inaccurate i am not even in the US so fuck off - totally sick shit dan On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 2:44 AM, <dan@geer.org> wrote:
| You may not believe in scarcity, but I know one thing for a fact. I | have a limited amount of food in my refrigerator, and a limited | tolerance for strangers in my house. You may not call that "scarcity" | but it sure sounds like scarcity to me. So I'll say it again: if I | wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna | be in big trouble Lucy.
And return the favor; Cari's kitchen is ostensibly at
% whois Globalrevops.org ... Tech ID:CR106626965 Tech Name:Cari machet Tech Organization:carimachet Tech Street: 3123 vernon blvd Tech City:Astoria Tech State/Province:New York Tech Postal Code:11106 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.6466526434 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax: Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email:cari_machet@me.com
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
dan your just a retaliating competitive little fucking capitalist YOU are whats wrong with the world petty bullshit could probably never admit you are wrong no self critic possible with your kind of psyche and this other shit about mass enslavement and oh we poor little fucks cant do nothing about nothing - have you ever even heard of the fucking enlightenment ya know before then the fucking church was your fucking slave master would you rather go back to that ??? - well a lot of super intelligent people draged humanity out of the death grip of the fucking church and monarchs > died for that shit and were imprisoned for fucking years - obviously we cant count on you fucks for any such activity fucking remotely cant even think for one fucking second On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
what a total fuck and completely inaccurate i am not even in the US so fuck off - totally sick shit dan
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 2:44 AM, <dan@geer.org> wrote:
| You may not believe in scarcity, but I know one thing for a fact. I | have a limited amount of food in my refrigerator, and a limited | tolerance for strangers in my house. You may not call that "scarcity" | but it sure sounds like scarcity to me. So I'll say it again: if I | wake up one morning and find you in my house eating my food, you-gonna | be in big trouble Lucy.
And return the favor; Cari's kitchen is ostensibly at
% whois Globalrevops.org ... Tech ID:CR106626965 Tech Name:Cari machet Tech Organization:carimachet Tech Street: 3123 vernon blvd Tech City:Astoria Tech State/Province:New York Tech Postal Code:11106 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.6466526434 Tech Phone Ext: Tech Fax: Tech Fax Ext: Tech Email:cari_machet@me.com
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
slime likes to group together and create cavities in peoples minds > deep holes none of you apparently have the capacity to actually make any arguments against what i write therefor have to resort to sick tactics like school children mentality how the fuck old are you supposed men? On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Robert Hettinga <hettinga@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
capitalist
Dang.
Long knives have come out.
Cheers, RAH
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Dnia sobota, 5 kwietnia 2014 09:49:13 Cari Machet pisze:
slime likes to group together and create cavities in peoples minds > deep holes
none of you apparently have the capacity to actually make any arguments against what i write therefor have to resort to sick tactics like school children mentality how the fuck old are you supposed men?
Thank FSM you're not calling people names, comparing them to children and questioning masculinity all around, or I wouldn't know what to think! -- Pozdr rysiek
Message du 05/04/14 12:19 De : "Cari Machet" slime likes to group together and create cavities in peoples minds > deep holes
none of you apparently have the capacity to actually make any arguments against what i write therefor have to resort to sick tactics like school children mentality how the fuck old are you supposed men?
How about you stop stamping your little feet to the ground while screaming "capitalists" once in a while?
Dnia sobota, 5 kwietnia 2014 05:18:44 Robert Hettinga pisze:
On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:44 PM, dan@geer.org wrote:
Tech ID:CR106626965
I haven’t had this much fun since the hogs at my little brother, I tellyawhut…
*Munches popcorn…*
Cheers, RAH
Add a "-66 Comanche" there and watch the fireworks! -- Pozdr rysiek
The CIA is the principal customer of NSA products outside the military. When global cyber spying Cybercom was proposed NSA did not want to do it, claiming it exceeded NSA's military mission. However, the pols, and CIA, wanted that very excess, in particular for spying inside the US, ostensibly banned for the CIA but now needed for terrorists inside. CIA (long FBI opponents) thought FBI could not cope with inside terrorists, using 9/11 as an example, and advocated NSA involvement with its much greater technical capability, but more importantly, its military-privileged secrecy not susceptible to full congressional oversight, courts and FOIA. The joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service (SCS) has been doing for decades what NSA is now alone accused of doing: CIA provided the targets, NSA did the technical collection from those global stations identified by xKeyscore (most in embassies or nearby). What is bizarre is how little CIA is mentioned in news furor about NSA, as if NSA did its work in isolation from the IC and without oversight of the 3 branches. SCS also does burglaries, code snatches, decrypts, doc drops, stings, ploys, blackmail, the panoply of CIA operations. The increased civilian target panoply bestowed upon NSA came from CIA demands channeled through ODNI. Reviewing what little has been released of the Snowden documents they are quite similar to what SCS has been doing with the addition of the US as target. FISA had to be rejiggered for the US domain. Most national leaders, like POTUS, are considered to be military commanders thus fair game for NSA along with CIA. Nothing exceptional about the recent revelations of spying on chiefs of state. NSA technical collection capability was developed for the military, not civilian use. Now expanded to CIA full dominance territory. FISA had to be rejiggered for using it against civilians. And is still being rejiggered these days. NSA's recent attempt to slough off Cybercom and return to its military mission, has been rejected by the civilian overseers following CIA guidance and fear-mongering of civilians, especially those inside the US. The last thing CIA and its supporters want is a revelation of its manipulation of civilian leaders institutionalized by the 1947 National Security Act (also opposed by the military). ----- At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, DG wrote on cypherpunks:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
--On Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:09 AM -0400 John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The CIA is the principal customer of NSA products outside the military. When global cyber spying Cybercom was proposed NSA did not want to do it, claiming it exceeded NSA's military mission.
That doesn't sound like something John Young would write. The idea that the US military, who are the ones really running the show, woudn't want to increase their power is just...too exceedingly naive.
However, the pols, and CIA, wanted that very excess, in particular for spying inside the US, ostensibly banned for the CIA but now needed for terrorists inside.
CIA (long FBI opponents) thought FBI could not cope with inside terrorists, using 9/11 as an example, and advocated NSA involvement with its much greater technical capability, but more importantly, its military-privileged secrecy not susceptible to full congressional oversight, courts and FOIA.
The joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service (SCS) has been doing for decades what NSA is now alone accused of doing: CIA provided the targets, NSA did the technical collection from those global stations identified by xKeyscore (most in embassies or nearby).
What is bizarre is how little CIA is mentioned in news furor about NSA, as if NSA did its work in isolation from the IC and without oversight of the 3 branches.
SCS also does burglaries, code snatches, decrypts, doc drops, stings, ploys, blackmail, the panoply of CIA operations. The increased civilian target panoply bestowed upon NSA came from CIA demands channeled through ODNI.
Reviewing what little has been released of the Snowden documents they are quite similar to what SCS has been doing with the addition of the US as target. FISA had to be rejiggered for the US domain.
Most national leaders, like POTUS, are considered to be military commanders thus fair game for NSA along with CIA. Nothing exceptional about the recent revelations of spying on chiefs of state.
NSA technical collection capability was developed for the military, not civilian use. Now expanded to CIA full dominance territory. FISA had to be rejiggered for using it against civilians. And is still being rejiggered these days.
NSA's recent attempt to slough off Cybercom and return to its military mission, has been rejected by the civilian overseers following CIA guidance and fear-mongering of civilians, especially those inside the US. The last thing CIA and its supporters want is a revelation of its manipulation of civilian leaders institutionalized by the 1947 National Security Act (also opposed by the military).
-----
At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, DG wrote on cypherpunks:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.ht ml?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
--On Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:09 AM -0400 John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The CIA is the principal customer of NSA products outside the military. When global cyber spying Cybercom was proposed NSA did not want to do it, claiming it exceeded NSA's military mission.
That doesn't sound like something John Young would write.
The idea that the US military, who are the ones really running the show, woudn't want to increase their power is just...too exceedingly naive.
yay to think the military would not want to expand its mandate when rummy fought so hard for them to get ahead of the cia ... competition is weird though it is possible - what are the thoughts on the cia as opposed to the military running the drone program in this regard ? the pentagon was gonna run it then it was decided no... the competition between different agencies in the us is bazzzarrio i cannot imagine how they deal with all the subcontractors - i am sure they figure out ways to be cruel to them the thing is that there are different entities 'running the show' mostly its your good ole transnational corporations and fucking autocrats - basic mafia shit the junta aspect of the so called gov is just an arm of the transnationals... ever been to the straight of hormuz? to put the military beyond the transnationals is beyond naive its complete blindness
However, the pols, and CIA, wanted that very excess, in particular for spying inside the US, ostensibly banned for the CIA but now needed for terrorists inside.
CIA (long FBI opponents) thought FBI could not cope with inside terrorists, using 9/11 as an example, and advocated NSA involvement with its much greater technical capability, but more importantly, its military-privileged secrecy not susceptible to full congressional oversight, courts and FOIA.
The joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service (SCS) has been doing for decades what NSA is now alone accused of doing: CIA provided the targets, NSA did the technical collection from those global stations identified by xKeyscore (most in embassies or nearby).
What is bizarre is how little CIA is mentioned in news furor about NSA, as if NSA did its work in isolation from the IC and without oversight of the 3 branches.
SCS also does burglaries, code snatches, decrypts, doc drops, stings, ploys, blackmail, the panoply of CIA operations. The increased civilian target panoply bestowed upon NSA came from CIA demands channeled through ODNI.
Reviewing what little has been released of the Snowden documents they are quite similar to what SCS has been doing with the addition of the US as target. FISA had to be rejiggered for the US domain.
Most national leaders, like POTUS, are considered to be military commanders thus fair game for NSA along with CIA. Nothing exceptional about the recent revelations of spying on chiefs of state.
NSA technical collection capability was developed for the military, not civilian use. Now expanded to CIA full dominance territory. FISA had to be rejiggered for using it against civilians. And is still being rejiggered these days.
NSA's recent attempt to slough off Cybercom and return to its military mission, has been rejected by the civilian overseers following CIA guidance and fear-mongering of civilians, especially those inside the US. The last thing CIA and its supporters want is a revelation of its manipulation of civilian leaders institutionalized by the 1947 National Security Act (also opposed by the military).
-----
At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, DG wrote on cypherpunks:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.ht
ml?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them:
From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States and its allies in the years since 9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues, the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds of its lawful authority.
This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA, but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job -- it implemented the authorities it was given.
It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was doing its job. It pained me to realize that the hard-working, dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often working for far less pay than they could have earned in the private sector because they were determined to help protect their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents, the Congress, and the courts.
Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an excuse. But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would have been justified in refusing to perform the functions assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. Although the Review Group found that many of those programs need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about the nature and implementation of its programs.
To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the NSA. They should not. Distrust is essential to effective democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and balances. The work it does, however important to the safety of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should never, ever, be trusted.
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
--On Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:12 PM +0000 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
yay to think the military would not want to expand its mandate when rummy fought so hard for them to get ahead of the cia ... competition is weird though it is possible - what are the thoughts on the cia as opposed to the military running the drone program in this regard ? the pentagon was gonna run it then it was decided no...
Different government agencies are...just that. Different facets of the same organization.
the competition between different agencies in the us is bazzzarrio i cannot imagine how they deal with all the subcontractors - i am sure they figure out ways to be cruel to them
There may be some 'competition' in the sense that they have to somehow divide the spoils 'fairly', but there's isn't any real competition in a monolithic criminal organization where all people agree on the core statist philosophy. Including the fucktards who pretend to be 'libertarians' and advocate 'limited' murder, I mean, 'government'.
the thing is that there are different entities 'running the show' mostly its your good ole transnational corporations and fucking autocrats - basic mafia shit the junta aspect of the so called gov is just an arm of the transnationals...
They are partners. Furthermore, while companies, *in theory* exist only to serve customers, governments *in theory and practice* exist only to steal, extort, kidnap, murder, etc.
ever been to the straight of hormuz?
no...
to put the military beyond the transnationals is beyond naive its complete blindness
I don't. Politicians and 'business leaders' should be both hanged by their balls.
However, the pols, and CIA, wanted that very excess, in particular for spying inside the US, ostensibly banned for the CIA but now needed for terrorists inside.
CIA (long FBI opponents) thought FBI could not cope with inside terrorists, using 9/11 as an example, and advocated NSA involvement with its much greater technical capability, but more importantly, its military-privileged secrecy not susceptible to full congressional oversight, courts and FOIA.
The joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service (SCS) has been doing for decades what NSA is now alone accused of doing: CIA provided the targets, NSA did the technical collection from those global stations identified by xKeyscore (most in embassies or nearby).
What is bizarre is how little CIA is mentioned in news furor about NSA, as if NSA did its work in isolation from the IC and without oversight of the 3 branches.
SCS also does burglaries, code snatches, decrypts, doc drops, stings, ploys, blackmail, the panoply of CIA operations. The increased civilian target panoply bestowed upon NSA came from CIA demands channeled through ODNI.
Reviewing what little has been released of the Snowden documents they are quite similar to what SCS has been doing with the addition of the US as target. FISA had to be rejiggered for the US domain.
Most national leaders, like POTUS, are considered to be military commanders thus fair game for NSA along with CIA. Nothing exceptional about the recent revelations of spying on chiefs of state.
NSA technical collection capability was developed for the military, not civilian use. Now expanded to CIA full dominance territory. FISA had to be rejiggered for using it against civilians. And is still being rejiggered these days.
NSA's recent attempt to slough off Cybercom and return to its military mission, has been rejected by the civilian overseers following CIA guidance and fear-mongering of civilians, especially those inside the US. The last thing CIA and its supporters want is a revelation of its manipulation of civilian leaders institutionalized by the 1947 National Security Act (also opposed by the military).
-----
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:09 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
The CIA is the principal customer of NSA products outside the military...
CIA (long FBI opponents) thought FBI could not cope with inside terrorists, using 9/11 as an example, and advocated NSA involvement with its much greater technical capability, but more importantly, its military-privileged secrecy not susceptible to full congressional oversight, courts and FOIA.
The joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service (SCS) has been doing for decades what NSA is now alone accused of doing: CIA provided the targets, NSA did the technical collection from those global stations identified by xKeyscore (most in embassies or nearby).
What is bizarre is how little CIA is mentioned in news furor about NSA, as if NSA did its work in isolation from the IC and without oversight of the 3 branches.
FBI DITU also playing front-man as of late, it seems. FBI-DITU + NSA-SSO/TAO + CIA/NSA-SCS - this is a trifecta of fuckery! they're a legislative laundry designed to circumvent any constraints individually by collectively attaining ends via means so offensive they must remain hidden lest "National Security and The Future of our Nation" be at risk... were i a new age "Citizens for Intelligence Community Oversight" i would pwn all three, and dump the entirety of their operations to darknet. let the public sort it out... [exercise for the reader: would it take longer for the world to digest an entire dump than it would the current Snowden-subset processing via reporter privilege?]
SCS also does burglaries, code snatches, decrypts, doc drops, stings, ploys, blackmail, the panoply of CIA operations. The increased civilian target panoply bestowed upon NSA came from CIA demands channeled through ODNI.
Reviewing what little has been released of the Snowden documents they are quite similar to what SCS has been doing with the addition of the US as target. FISA had to be rejiggered for the US domain.
the use of foreign, military IC tools against domestic targets is where many interesting stories lay. you think yesterday's battlefield exploits don't become today's domestic lawful access? epic lulz! what fucking tatters they've left our "Constitutional Rights"... [which should be afforded to all citizens of Eath, my over seas peers fucked harder, longer, in no offensive a manner]
NSA's recent attempt to slough off Cybercom and return to its military mission, has been rejected by the civilian overseers following CIA guidance and fear-mongering of civilians, especially those inside the US. The last thing CIA and its supporters want is a revelation of its manipulation of civilian leaders institutionalized by the 1947 National Security Act (also opposed by the military).
indeed. IC suffering a deluge of undue oversight and sunlight. are you crazy POTUS, you want more potential visibility? get tha fuck back in yer hole, servant...
participants (16)
-
Adam Back -
Alfie John -
b. brewer -
Cari Machet -
coderman -
Cypher -
dan＠geer.org -
Douglas Lucas -
Guido Witmond -
John Young -
Juan Garofalo -
Patrick Chkoreff -
Robert Hettinga -
rysiek -
shelley＠misanthropia.info -
tpb-crypto＠laposte.net