NSA web/phone records collection

Amerika

The White House tells us that in order to stop terrorists, then need to track every one of our phone call and online keystrokes, yet, yet wait for it… it excludes the very places where the majority of homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

And who the hell is the "Sensitive Operations Review Committee?"

But hey, the government did such a good job stopping the Boston Bomber after massive and frightening bells and whistles were sounded over him… Oh Wait!

And we know government agencies like the IRS and DOJ won’t dare abuse the information they "legally" obtain… Oh Crap!

And our police can ask about the legal immigration status of individuals, and deport those here illegally… OMG!

But hey, lets spy on grandma… cause you never know what she might be hiding in that big blue bee hive hairdo.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

The White House tells us that in order to stop terrorists, then need to track every one of our phone call and online keystrokes, yet, yet wait for it… it excludes the very places where the majority of homegrown terrorists are radicalized.



And who the hell is the "Sensitive Operations Review Committee?"

But hey, the government did such a good job stopping the Boston Bomber after massive and frightening bells and whistles were sounded over him… Oh Wait!

And we know government agencies like the IRS and DOJ won’t dare abuse the information they "legally" obtain… Oh Crap!

And our police can ask about the legal immigration status of individuals, and deport those here illegally… OMG!

But hey, lets spy on grandma… cause you never know what she might be hiding in that big blue bee hive hairdo.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

nagilum2

Carcharodon wrote: »

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

I don't support ANY mainstream politician, because they're all liars. But IMO Obama has become worse than Bush, because he specifically and emphatically ran against the very thing that he has now expanded upon.

As for the "it's not a big deal" comment. First, it's a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the constitution, which is itself a reaction to abuse of overly broad warrants issued by the English and was a contributor to fighting the Revolutionary War in the first place. Second, this is the same administration that only a week earlier was fighting charges from having the tax collection service target its political opponents. And it's "not a big deal" that they are now recording everything and can listen in on everything with no warrants? In a word, that's utter BS.

TheSB

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Carcharodon

nagilum2 wrote: »

I don't support ANY mainstream politician, because they're all liars. But IMO Obama has become worse than Bush, because he specifically and emphatically ran against the very thing that he has now expanded upon.

As for the "it's not a big deal" comment. First, it's a direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the constitution, which is itself a reaction to abuse of overly broad warrants issued by the English and was a contributor to fighting the Revolutionary War in the first place. Second, this is the same administration that only a week earlier was fighting charges from having the tax collection service target its political opponents. And it's "not a big deal" that they are now recording everything and can listen in on everything with no warrants? In a word, that's utter BS.

Oh the good old constitution, why people still think something written over a hundred years ago is still so relevant is beyond me.
If you honestly think somebody is listening to what your phone calls then you are misguided, it's near impossible.
And on the tax thing.... really...

nagilum2

Carcharodon wrote: »

Oh the good old constitution, why people still think something written over a hundred years ago is still so relevant is beyond me.
If you honestly think somebody is listening to what your phone calls then you are misguided, it's near impossible.
And on the tax thing.... really...

I doubt very much that you are an authority on what is technically possible, and what is not. Regardless, if you're willing to issue a Carte Blanche dismissal of the most important and fundamental legal document underpinning all United States code, we're going to be at an impasse for any productive discussion.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

If you could just channel a fraction of that negative attitude towards Obama and the government towards something a bit more productive then the world would be a better place.
I think you have lost sight on how democracy is supposed to work, you elected him now you support him while at times being objective in your criticism of him.
Way too much hatred... sorry for being off topic

On topic - how can people cry about this now, what kind of bubble do they live in, and its not even a big deal

Well, maybe if we would have gotten the middle of center president we were promised in his campaigns, rather than the progressive on steroids, I might have been able to get behind him.

And sometime the only way to get through to the uninformed voter is through sarcasm, showing the ridiculousness and idiocy of some of what our administration says and does.

But looking back, perhaps it would have played out better if instead of saying "OMG!" on the last point, I should have noted "Insert one of Jon Stewart’s patented humorous looks indicating the stupidity of the NSA arguments, when you look at obvious ways to deter terrorism and we refuse to do things because of political correctness."

Jonny7

Live Q&A on the Guardian now with Snowden

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

Hmm in my opinion, a lot of politically charged and very strong comments in there - he shouldn't be using this as a platform to project his own views, just give the info, which appears strong enough by itself.

cyberhog

Juan Cole has compiled a list of the top ten ways the US media are screwing the public on the spying story.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/screwing-surveillance-redux.html

clairefontaine

TheSB wrote: »

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

Rather than the traitors the Obama administration are.

Espionage is releasing info to the enemy. Snowden did it to the American people.

Jonny7

Snowden with his high profile easily evading US authorities..

if only they had some sort of powerful modern surveillance system to track and find him..

Amerika

Perhaps all he had to do was dress in a Jalabiya or Bist to easily escape without detection… which is like Kryptonite to our powerful modern tracking systems, as surveillance here of mosques is only allowed after obtaining high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department.

[/sarcasm]

FionnMatthew

nagilum2 wrote: »

Sorry, but I have no idea how you can conclude that this is "pretty much the same thing"???

Manning didn't review what he released, and clearly didn't care about the consequences to individuals. Snowden specifically wanted to highlight illegal activity without putting individuals at risk.

Simply false.

Listed below are all the items provided by Manning that Wikileaks published, along with remarks about their sensitivity. Where warranted, I have quoted Manning’s trial statements regarding his thinking at the time about the impact of each leak:

1. Reykjavik13, a diplomatic cable suggesting that Iceland had sought the United States help in resolving a dispute with the United Kingdom over the UK’s use of anti-terrorism legislation to secure payment by Iceland of the guarantees for UK depositors. Since this is a matter that involved neither US intelligence nor military, Manning obviously had no reason to believe it put anyone at risk.

2. ”Collateral Murder “, the military’s gunsight footage from a Baghdad air strike on a group of eleven mostly unarmed people, including two Reuters journalists whose cameras were allegedly mistaken for weapons. Eight people were killed, rescuers were fired upon and children were injured in the attack. There is no national security argument that can be credibly made against the leaking of a video that documents war crimes, particularly one documenting an incident that happened three years before Manning leaked it and which had already been covered in several news accounts.

3. Afghan War Logs/Iraq War Logs, a collection of SigActs, records created by US Military regarding Significant Activities, including civilian deaths. Here is what Manning said in his court statement about their sensitivity:

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation (HN) media.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

4. “Cablegate” leak of 251,287 State Department cables, written by 271 American embassies and consulates in 180 countries, dated December 1966 to February 2010. Manning’s remarks:

Of the documents released, the cables were the only ones I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website. The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption applied only to [unavailable verbatim: he describes information and messages "deemed appropriate for" release and "a wide number of individuals"]. According to the Department of State guidance, for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions limiting distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information [to be] shared with anyone [authorized to] access SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, DoS, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact the SIPDIS caption was for wide distribution made sense to me given how the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion this was the type of information that should become public. I once read [unavailable] a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War [about how] the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with or against each other. I thought these cables were a prime example of the need for more open diplomacy.

Given all of the DoS info I read, the fact most of these cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believed the public release of these cables would not damage the United States. I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing since they represent very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations. In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the DoS, and other government entities, unhappy.

5. Guantanamo Bay Files, a collection of Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), memos giving basic and background information about a specific detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Manning’s trial statement indicates, once again, that he carefully considered intelligence and national security risk:

Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR’s. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide a very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB’s were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very important from either an intelligence or a national security standpoint.

Any discussion of the alleged recklessness of Manning’s leaks must also include the reminder that prior to the publication of the State Department cables, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State, inviting them to “privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed”. Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Adviser, rejected the proposal, stating: “We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials”. Despite the State Department’s apparent lack of urgency, Wikileaks redacted the names of sources and others in potentially vulnerable positions before publishing. Unredacted cables were only published after a security breach by a Guardian writer necessitated it. (Source: Wikipedia).

Similarly, Wikileaks offered to allow the Department of Defense to review the War Logs for potentially risky material, but this offer too was declined. (Source: Salon).

Considering the nature of the leaks themselves, the care with which Manning considered the military and intelligence risk of each document set, and the way both the US State Department and Department of Defense declined to review the leaks and thereby vindicated Manning’s risk assessment, it should come as no surprise that not a single injury to, or death of, U.S. military or intelligence personel can be attributed to his extraordinary whistleblowing.

In other words, Manning’s alleged recklessness is pure legend, a lie told again and again to minimize the real significance of his disclosures, to foster fairy tales about his emotional instability, to justify both the hideous treatment he has received at the hands of the U.S. Military and the disgusting extent to which he has been smeared and trivialized by the few reporters and pundits who even bother with his extremely consequential case.

ThreeBlindMice

TheSB wrote: »

The good thing about the US Constitution is that is written in such plain language. Obama is clearly violating the rights of every American. The only thing that surprises me is that this is not as big a news story as it should be. The American media are now just focusing on how much a "traitor" Snowden is.

The White House controls the US mainstream media, this is the reason why the story has been suppressed. If one wants to hear more of the truth on this matter you would be better sourcing it from Alternative Media channels.

clairefontaine

I feel very strange giving Snowden the thumbs up when six years ago I would have been outraged. Things have just gone too far in this new McCarthy era.

nagilum2

Black Swan wrote: »

WIRED is a monthly with a total print circulation of 819,457. Its online version received average monthly page views of 76,271,080.

If you had not read last year's WIRED, perhaps you have read USA Today? It's a nationally distributed US newspaper with one of the largest print circulations of 1,817,446 in the United States. USA Today reported 11 May 2006:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth"

"For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others."

Once again, this is OLD NEWS.

From that article:

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

Except now we know how that court approval process was carried out in bulk, and in secret. And, now we know that leaders of these organizations (Clapper) have been lying about the extent of it to congressional oversight committees.

The devil is in the details, and the details are what has caused the uproar. The knowledge of the extent of the program and the degree to which it is being applied is very new. And if the Amash amendment passes today (http://www.defundthensa.com), then this conversation will continue further.

Jonny7

ThreeBlindMice wrote: »

The White House controls the US mainstream media, this is the reason why the story has been suppressed. If one wants to hear more of the truth on this matter you would be better sourcing it from Alternative Media channels.

Washington doesn't control thousands of media outlets all over the world.

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

As opposed to mainstream news media?

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't recommend "alternative" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just personal websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

If i just slightly alter what you have said, it would be quite true...

I don't recommend "mainstream" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just ''corporate'' websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

If i just slightly alter what you have said, it would be quite true...

I don't recommend "mainstream" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just ''corporate'' websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

Interesting! can't wait to see all the examples of this..

lets choose a very mainstream site, www.bbc.co.uk/news, over the last week.

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

As opposed to mainstream news media?

Like the Guardian and the Washington Post?

Can you please point me to one single "alternative" news site that has one fraction the credibility, accountibility and accuracy of either of those press outlets and I will be impressed to say the least.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Like the Guardian and the Washington Post?

Can you please point me to one single "alternative" news site that has one fraction the credibility, accountibility and accuracy of either of those press outlets and I will be impressed to say the least.

What do you even define as 'mainstream'?

Glenn Greenwald had been writing for Salon.com for about 5 years I think, before switching to the Guardian, and before Salon.com he wrote on a blog.

You don't judge the quality of journalism, based on loose concepts like 'mainstream vs alternative', because the vast majority of mainstream news out there is utter garbage, as likely is much alternative news - you look for the exceptions in both areas, and you judged based on writers themselves not news organizations.

Jonny7

In context of the previous comment

The White House controls the US mainstream media, this is the reason why the story has been suppressed. If one wants to hear more of the truth on this matter you would be better sourcing it from Alternative Media channels.

The general definition is that "mainstream" media comprises of the everyday outlets and newspapers, ranging from reputable press subject to industry standards all the way down to tabloid rags.

Some choose to tar the "mainstream" (consisting of thousands of outlets) as somehow behaving uniformly or under the control of government/corporation or for a specific agenda.

When the "mainstream" generalisation is used, usually the "alternative" news cliche is also present as in the above comment.

In this context, "alternative" generally refers to internet sites, propaganda news (from e.g. Russia, Iran) and blog sites that certain individuals believe is the "real truth" simply because they produce information that is, what they deem, different from "mainstream" media.

The reason this info is different is usually because it's either a) bull**** or b) stories that are either true/exaggerated/embellished to suit a certain agenda.

I've spent several years reading self-styled "alternative" news sites - most make the Daily Mirror look like a bastion of free and credible press.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Interesting! can't wait to see all the examples of this..

lets choose a very mainstream site, www.bbc.co.uk/news, over the last week.

What?!

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

What?!

I don't recommend "mainstream" media sites, few if any have any credibility, and are often just ''corporate'' websites filled with blogs and heavily editoralised stories with a clear agenda.

Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of "mainstream" news sites where I think it would be quite difficult to demonstrate the above (if at all)

Alternatively I can think of dozens of popular "alternative" news sites, which demonstrate it pretty well.

So, taking what I said and reversing it doesn't really work.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of "mainstream" news sites where I think it would be quite difficult to demonstrate the above (if at all)

Really, you dont think that mainstream corporate media may have its own agenda, and in fact reports objectively and fairly. Wow, please tell me how you can come to such a blissfully ignorant conclusion, i'd love to be able to do the same, although i can't.

I agree, it would be difficult to demonstrate such, which is entirley the point.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

Really, you dont think that mainstream corporate media may have its own agenda, and in fact reports objectively and fairly. Wow, please tell me how you can come to such a blissfully ignorant conclusion, i'd love to be able to do the same, although i can't.

Well I didn't really claim the bolded part now did I - shady reporting there


I have heard the above a lot. There are some outlets e.g. Sky News and it's sister Fox News, several US outlets and of course a whole raft of pseudo-tabloids that could be said to fall under this umbrella to varying extent.

However to classify "mainstream" media either as the above or in the way you used to describe it before is not really true at all. There are many more examples of reputable newspapers exposing government and corporate fraud and corruption than covering up these incidences.


Taking the original comment from the other poster (I was replying to) that the "mainstream" was controlled by the White House - well that's not true.

That the story was suppressed? no

and that more truth would be found on alternative media on the matter? again, not true, Snowden went to the Guardian and Washington Post precisely because most "alternative" media is much less credible.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well I didn't really claim the bolded part now did I - shady reporting there

You kinda did claim that, in fact I was stating the opposite when i edited what you had said, and you said that this was not true/demsonstratable.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I have heard the above a lot. There are some outlets e.g. Sky News and it's sister Fox News, several US outlets and of course a whole raft of pseudo-tabloids that could be said to fall under this umbrella to varying extent.

Agreed.

Jonny7 wrote: »

That the story was suppressed? no

Well it was a somewhat unsurpressable story, but it is more how it is reported that I am talking about. I read some articles in the NY Times, Time, The Economist, The Financial Times, Forbes, to name a view, and the 'objective' coverage of this story was startling.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Snowden went to the Guardian and Washington Post precisely because most "alternative" media is much less credible.

I don't think it was credibility as much as the audience that these media outlets could reach, as oppossed to some guys blog or personal website. It was clear though why he went to The Washington Post as oppossed to the NY Times.

MadYaker

Bumping this as more info has come to light. Article.

It seems they are colllecting location data from cell phones all over the world and not just American citizens on US soil. Pretty incredible stuff.

Be like Nutella

Of the 67,844 people killed in acts of terrorism from 2008 - 2012

84 were Americans

2008: 33 of 15,709
2009: 9 of 15,311
2010: 15 of 13,193
2011: 17 of 12,533
2012: 10 of 11,098
(Micah Zenko Council on Foreign Relations)

To lose 84 people to terrorist acts is of course sad.

That's 0.1 of 1% people killed in acts of terrorism in 5 years.

9/11 was a 1 in a million thing... and now with altered airport/flight security the chances of another attack anyway similar to 9/11 is even smaller.

Not because of the NSA listening to everybody's calls reading everybody's emails all the time everywhere. Simply because the guy who planned most of 9/11 was a 1 in a million himself and is now sitting in GITMO. 9/11 was a hugely audacious, complex and coordinated large scale attack formed in the mind of an evil genius KSM and now he's in jail. This is lost on most people IMO.

Terrorism is certainly not enough of a reason to justify the NSA in the form we are now suddenly aware of today, largely thanks to Edward Snowden.

The NSA is attempting to reach a point of Total Information Awareness - T.I.A.
- a point at which they can collect, store and process all communications all the time between everyone on earth. All calls, All Emails , All search, All social network data, All Cred Card transactions, All locations of everyone with a mobile device 24 / 7 / 365.

That's the goal.

Not because they want to know what porn sites I personally visit...

but because when you have EVERYTHING
you can potentially find something you want ! i.e. that needle in that haystack.

IF you build a smart enough NSA 'machine', with fast enough processing and smart enough algorithms, make enough back-doors into associated companies, tap enough cables, launch enough satellites, build enough data centers, employ enough people and spread enough fear and lies in the form of 'the 9/11 card' then you can actually reach that T.I.A. point and that is the their goal. I don't blame them at all why shoot low right? If you can actually have everything then why not? if nobody stops you... you might as well ! They think they're just doing their jobs. It's not up to them to oversee themselves. They want their haystack and they want to be able to find that needle it's as simple as that to the NSA and it's bosses.

If we want to play the numbers game then fine - IMO it is not worth giving up on privacy and possibly, very possibly putting too much information power into the hands of the NSA in order to 'only' possibly save some of those 84 American lives in the last 5 years... if I was American I would think this too.

There has not been one single case brought forward which proves that the T.I.A. approach of the NSA of today has specifically saved lives by simply collecting and detecting an imminent plot in communications and stopping it. There certainly is no evidence that they've done it many times.

With the Bluffdale data center coming online recently and with supercomputers of comparable power to 'Titan' becoming available to the NSA and with the total freedom which the Patriot Act and other 'powers' acts gives the NSA and the endless stream of staggering eavesdropping programs which Snowden has brought to our attention in the last few months there SHOULD be a massive national outrage and people in hundreds of thousands on the streets of Washington demanding the NSA be disbanded and re-targeted and re-tasked and completely culled and reshaped into an Intel Agency which investigates along with the CIA 'suspected Terrorists' starting from point A ...instead of the 'collect everything all the time' approach which the NSA is currently using.

It will require much much more public understanding than exists at present and will literally need a massive march on Washington 50 times greater than anything which has gone on so far and the media will play a huge role in this rising protest wave.

I am completely confused how Americans who understand this issue are not more outraged... being a country who purports to stand for Freedom more so than any nation ever did on earth and which tries to spread democratic freedom around the world.

House Permanent Intelligence Committee NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander

(TRY NOT VOMIT INTO YOUR OWN MOUTH)

"First, how did we get here? How did we end up here? 9/11 -- 2,996 people were killed in 9/11. We all distinctly remember that. What I remember the most was those firemen running up the stairs to save people, to then themselves lose their lives. We had this great picture that was created afterward of a fireman handing a flag off to the military, and I'd say the intelligence community, and the military and the intelligence community said: ‘We've got it from here.'"

- Not if the rising voice of Americans have something to say about it !

The whole NSA system needs shutting down and rebooting under a new mission and oversight regime. People aren't going to let this blow over and sink into the background, not this time. The volume of protest will just continue to rise and rise until they can't be ignored and their politicians have to do something or they risk losing elections... it's the only way.

The possibility of terrorism is simply not worth giving up your privacy and allowing so much power to be concentrated within one agency with total bullsh1t oversight.

It's complete overkill and far too dangerous to democracy now and most importantly... in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55D-ybnYQSs