Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Dr_Grip]

I'm sorry but its juvenile to believe that a Government would not protect national interest.

That's true. But we should not forget that the question whether the current security-instread-of-liberty policies of the US government (and "hard power instead of soft power" in foreign relations) are in the national interest of if they are a misguided, maybe even harmful policy, is not automatically aswered.

Also I have trouble believing that German officials were "shocked" that we spy on them just as I'm not shocked that Israel spies on the US.

The US still have de-facto unlimited rights to do whatever they please on German soil due to contracts that go back to post-WW 2 occupation. These contracts have been extended each time they expired by German chancellors from the very left (Brandt) to the very conservative (Adenauer).
Obviously our politicians knew what the US are doing.

But you have to remember that Merkel is up for re-election in September. And being spied on by a foreign power, friendly or not, is bad press, thus playing "shocked" is an expected move for campaigning politicians from all sides.

 

[Momentum57]

That's true. But we should not forget that the question whether the current security-instread-of-liberty policies of the US government (and "hard power instead of soft power" in foreign relations) are in the national interest of if they are a misguided, maybe even harmful policy, is not automatically aswered.

Interesting I consider signals intelligence as soft power at the very least passive. I know that we have used economic warfare that to me seems to be firmer soft power; some say more hard if you believe John Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". The problem is that "misguided, maybe even harmful policy" question was presented to the wrong party. The NSA has no policy, the CIA has no policy, the White House makes those decisions sets national priorities and policy. Despite the far left and far right assertions I for one believe that the Obama administration has done a good job on managing intelligence and covert actions.

The question of who is an adversary and who isn't seems simple to me: a balance of interest, power, and capability. For example Germany has numerous overlapping interest with the US, strong economic world power, and capability to frustrate US interest. As opposed to Suriname unless the US has a greater interest in palm kernels than I know of its low power and incapability to influence executive agreements lead its importance to be watched as extremely low.

Its the haranguing of NSA recruiters that they should make a policy statement that I find as being ridiculous then more absurd

You can analyze said documents for your so-called customers but then you can go and get drunk and dress up and have fun without thinking of the repercussions of the info you?re analyzing has on the rest of the world.

They masturbate and not cry how dare you not cut your own dicks off! It's calling them liars, shouting at them, looking for a fight that is just not there. They might be very smart language students however their narrow education expertise seems to have inflated their opinion of their reasoning. I'm not saying that only lawyers should be able to comment on the Fourth Amendment, students are welcome to their opinion, but I think that the debate is much more complex than their understanding.

Obviously our politicians knew what the US are doing. But you have to remember that Merkel is up for re-election in September. And being spied on by a foreign power, friendly or not, is bad press, thus playing "shocked" is an expected move for campaigning politicians from all sides.

I do understand the political theater I just cannot believe that anyone is naive enough to believe it.

I think Germany seems to be quite shocked at what has been going on. This is not just a word game and you understand that as well as I do. So, it?s very strange that you?re selling yourself here in one particular fashion when it?s absolutely not true.

As far as intellectual dishonesty goes this is as high as how this debate has been framed as being NSA wiretaps vs Bush Wiretaps. Bush admitted to his wiretap program the next day (see below) and the debate consistently was framed as Bush Wiretaps. Obama admitted to his wiretap program and the debate is framed as NSA Wiretaps. Mind you the hypocrisy is that the President had said as "Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and 'wiretaps without warrants,'". The far left and far right are entitled to the opinions I just wish they were coherent.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

 

[Dr_Grip]

The NSA has no policy, the CIA has no policy, the White House makes those decisions sets national priorities and policy.

That's how it should work in theory. But one does not have to be a tin-foil wearing conspiraciologist to see that large organization develop policies of their own, do things either because they think it would be in the best interest of The Cause, because they anticipate orders that may or may not come in order to make a good impresion and, most worryingly, to serve their own interests: The latter category includes inter-agency turf wars as well as things like wiretapping decisionmakers in order to prepare for budget negotiations.

Despite the far left and far right assertions I for one believe that the Obama administration has done a good job on managing intelligence and covert actions.

I for one like to disagree: The balance between "security" and "liberty" is tipped towards "security" in an alarming way. More data is collected by the US, British (and, I guess, most or all other EU governments) right now than the east German Stasi ever collected. I don't see the difference - it is snooping on one's own citizens, no matter if the good guys or the bad guys are doing it.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

That's how it should work in theory. But one does not have to be a tin-foil wearing conspiraciologist to see that large organization develop policies of their own, do things either because they think it would be in the best interest of The Cause, because they anticipate orders that may or may not come in order to make a good impresion and, most worryingly, to serve their own interests: The latter category includes inter-agency turf wars as well as things like wiretapping decisionmakers in order to prepare for budget negotiations.

Any agency will develop some policy of its own, it has to. The administration and/or Congress will give it a directive, but the agency will have to develop the tools, techniques, and missions to meet that directive.

I for one like to disagree: The balance between "security" and "liberty" is tipped towards "security" in an alarming way. More data is collected by the US, British (and, I guess, most or all other EU governments) right now than the east German Stasi ever collected. I don't see the difference - it is snooping on one's own citizens, no matter if the good guys or the bad guys are doing it.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. With today's amount of social media and public information, governments can collect vast amounts of information without doing any real snooping. With a minor amount of effort, it can then collect near limitless amounts of information. Governments of yesterday never had that capability. Today's governments don't even have to intrude on peoples' day to day lives to learn about them.

I think the NSA has gone too far this time, but it was bound to happen. As technology and communication advances, they have to go farther and try harder to get the information they need. When the door opens for them to collect all the information they could ever want, it isn't a surprise that they'd go for it. It was a natural overreach of people trying to get the job done. I don't even find it alarming (I'd find it alarming if they were using the Verizon data to prosecute US citizens). Now it is the job of the WH and Congress to pull them back.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I think the NSA has gone too far this time, but it was bound to happen. As technology and communication advances, they have to go farther and try harder to get the information they need. When the door opens for them to collect all the information they could ever want, it isn't a surprise that they'd go for it. It was a natural overreach of people trying to get the job done. I don't even find it alarming (I'd find it alarming if they were using the Verizon data to prosecute US citizens). Now it is the job of the WH and Congress to pull them back.

I mostly agree with you there. The only difference is that I think the data collection is alarming: Experience shows that law enforcement will use any data they have to prosecute any crime. Just today I read that the Austrian authorities used the communications metadata collected to fight terrorism and organized crime to prosecute theft (not felony theft, just normal theft), robberies, fraud and stalking. If authorities overreach in collecting data, they will most likely overreach in their use as well.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

I mostly agree with you there. The only difference is that I think the data collection is alarming: Experience shows that law enforcement will use any data they have to prosecute any crime. Just today I read that the Austrian authorities used the communications metadata collected to fight terrorism and organized crime to prosecute theft (not felony theft, just normal theft), robberies, fraud and stalking. If authorities overreach in collecting data, they will most likely overreach in their use as well.

The ability of the NSA to use information they collect to prosecute individuals is severely hampered by the laws that apply in criminal courts. Just because a FISA court allowed the NSA to collect certain data doesn't mean a judge in a criminal court will recognize it as legal. I'd bet money that criminal courts would not recognize much of this data collection as legal.

 

[Dr_Grip]

But until the evidence is thrown out in court, an overeager DA may have already destroyed the life of the accused.

 

[GRtak]

I mostly agree with you there. The only difference is that I think the data collection is alarming: Experience shows that law enforcement will use any data they have to prosecute any crime. Just today I read that the Austrian authorities used the communications metadata collected to fight terrorism and organized crime to prosecute theft (not felony theft, just normal theft), robberies, fraud and stalking. If authorities overreach in collecting data, they will most likely overreach in their use as well.

Such abuses are already happening by law enforcement officers in NY. Not NSA collected info, but with FBI files. The story will point to the few that have been caught.

The ability of the NSA to use information they collect to prosecute individuals is severely hampered by the laws that apply in criminal courts. Just because a FISA court allowed the NSA to collect certain data doesn't mean a judge in a criminal court will recognize it as legal. I'd bet money that criminal courts would not recognize much of this data collection as legal.

For how long? DO we wait until they start using your comments in a private conversation to remove your Fifth Amendments rights?

 

[SpitfireMK461]

For how long? DO we wait until they start using your comments in a private conversation to remove your Fifth Amendments rights?

I'm not sure what you mean. Private conversations can already be accepted as evidence if they were collected in a legal way with the proper warrants.

 

[GRtak]

The NSA does not get warrants, and sooner or later they will start recording "interesting" conversations ( I am sure they already do) that involve any illegal activity that they overhear.

 

[MacGuffin]

What most people don't know is, that as a result of WWII Germany has no real secret service. It has the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) an intelligence service, which - as its name says - only gathers information for the government. But a real secret service, like the CIA or the MI6, which also use political infiltration tactics and obviously go much deeper into spying, is non-existent here.

So the German BND has to be reliant on information from other secret services. And as I understand, the CIA or the Russian SWR have delivered information in the past, preventing terror acts in Germany. So far, so good.

The thing is, though, that without an own secret service, you fight with one hand tied behind your back. Of course everybody else is not only using their secret services to gather and share information, they also spy on you and your industry. And the USA are not even the biggest ones at industrial espionage. Estimations say it's the French.

Anyway, I agree with Dr. Grip, that Merkel is extremely well informed about everything that's going on. I am convinced she is accepting it all as a necessary evil in order to get vital information from other secret services. Her indignation is mostly part of her election campaign. And one also has to point out, that in the end it's up to every single person or company to protect themselves from being spied on.

In any case it's no real news. In 1996 the following happened to leading German windpower manufacturer Enercon:

Enercon was prohibited from exporting their wind turbines to the US until 2010 due to alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 5,083,039 .[25][26] In a dispute before the United States International Trade Commission, Enercon did not challenge the vailidity of the US patent but argued that their technology was not affected. The ITC decided that the patent covered the technology in question and banned Enercon turbines from the US market until 2010.[27] Later on, a cross patent agreement was made with the competitor General Electric, the successor of Kenetech, after similar claims of Enercon against GE. According to a NSA employee detailed information concerning Enercon was passed on to Kenetech via ECHELON. The aim of the alleged espionage against Enercon was the forwarding of details of Wobben's generator technology to a US firm.[28]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon

So it's a complete mystery to me, why anybody is suddenly so surprised about all this, because no later than the 1990's everyone who wanted to know about it, coud have been knowing about it.

 

[ScarFace88]

Fuck the NSA.

I'm totally on a watchlist now.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

The NSA does not get warrants, and sooner or later they will start recording "interesting" conversations ( I am sure they already do) that involve any illegal activity that they overhear.

Which means that the judge of any criminal court will throw it out in a jiffy, and the NSA will be solely to blame for ruining the case against a criminal for screwing up the most important evidence. See how this works?

 

[GRtak]

In theory that is great. But at the rate the government is ignoring the constitution, how long until they say the call was broadcast, therefore, not private?

 

[Cobol74]

Until enough 'concerned citizens' get off their bums and complain big stylie. Even form a Political party and get some votes.

 

[GRtak]

The time is ripe for a good third party candidate. Ralp Nader again?

 

[argatoga]

Being both are creations of Congress wouldn't both the secrete courts and the Federal courts be on equal footing? Only the Supreme Court could overrule them.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

In theory that is great. But at the rate the government is ignoring the constitution, how long until they say the call was broadcast, therefore, not private?

"The Government" is not one entity. The NSA has no relation to the courthouse down the street. Neither does the President or Congress. Even if the NSA got a warrant from the FISC, that doesn't mean a local judge or another federal judge in district court will accept it.

Being both are creations of Congress wouldn't both the secrete courts and the Federal courts be on equal footing? Only the Supreme Court could overrule them.

How do you mean? They have different jurisdictions and different jobs. There is also nothing preventing one from overruling the other. Courts disagree on precedent all the time.

 

[argatoga]

"The Government" is not one entity. The NSA has no relation to the courthouse down the street. Neither does the President or Congress. Even if the NSA got a warrant from the FISC, that doesn't mean a local judge or another federal judge in district court will accept it.



How do you mean? They have different jurisdictions and different jobs. There is also nothing preventing one from overruling the other. Courts disagree on precedent all the time.

Congress created the federal court system with a hierarchy. Hence you have cases go up to higher courts (the Supreme Court is a different beast and can choose any case it wants to hear). I admit I am unaware of where this court fits on that hierarchy.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

It's not in that hierarchy, afaik. It's a different branch because it deals with different issues.

EDIT: This may mean any challenges to warrants given may go straight to the SC rather than start in district court. In terms of gathered evidence being used against someone in court, that would probably follow the typical path up the chain.