|
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/merkel-in-the-middle-109071.html?ml=m_u4_1
ertainly there seems reason for suspicion that Washington is the one being left alone on the dance floor. Merkel grew up in Eastern Germany and speaks fluent Russian, while Putin, who was stationed in Dresden for the KGB, speaks very good German. During their fairly frequent meetings, including one before the World Cup match, they are often seen talking animatedly to each other (without translators, of course). The two countries also have deep and abiding common interests: Russia is one of Germany’s foremost trade partners in Eastern Europe. And Russian gas deliveries to Europe, including Germany, are vital for the Europeans. Moreover, it was Germany (and France) that vetoed the idea of offering a path to membership status in NATO to Georgia and Ukraine—a U.S. proposal—in 2008. During a recent German-Georgian security conference in Tbilisi, German representatives also disabused their Georgian partners about the idea that Berlin might support a membership action plan for Georgia at the forthcoming NATO meeting in September. Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/merkel-in-the-middle-109071.html#ixzz37xTsfo1Y It would be interesting to see if increased spying on the Germans has been caused by the Germans closer alliance with Russia or if it began earlier.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 19 2014 17:06 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make... again, recording of data is not the same as active surveillance. sig int is a discovery tool. your point is basically they should only do it when a suspect is identified, but the NSA is about identifying of that suspect in the first place.
|
On July 20 2014 09:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 17:06 radiatoren wrote:On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make... again, recording of data is not the same as active surveillance. sig int is a discovery tool. your point is basically they should only do it when a suspect is identified, but the NSA is about identifying of that suspect in the first place. No. I am actively trying to make a distinction between active surveillance and recorded data, where time is less of a factor. I think we can agree that bulk collection is collection of already recorded data. If you want access to that prerecorded data you should be able to come up with a specific reason to request it in the first place. Preferrably only given access to the specifically requested data. Identifying suspects is something you do with real time surveillance. You dig into the haystack to search for the suspects connections.
|
On July 20 2014 09:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 17:06 radiatoren wrote:On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make... again, recording of data is not the same as active surveillance. sig int is a discovery tool. your point is basically they should only do it when a suspect is identified, but the NSA is about identifying of that suspect in the first place. hardly relevant what you call it if a massive majority does not want it to happen and most countries consider it unlawfull
|
On July 20 2014 09:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 17:06 radiatoren wrote:On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make... again, recording of data is not the same as active surveillance. sig int is a discovery tool. your point is basically they should only do it when a suspect is identified, but the NSA is about identifying of that suspect in the first place.
Yes active surveillance means you actually know what you're doing and bulk surveillance has been shown to be a complete waste of resources.
Your claim is absolutely ridiculous. Nothing has ever been found with bulk surveillance, and we do actually have ways of identifying suspects without just blindly taking everyone's data. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. How exactly do you think this works?
|
On July 20 2014 09:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 17:06 radiatoren wrote:On July 18 2014 16:54 oneofthem wrote: the latest snowden allegations is not substantiated. but it would be a serious problem if true. nevertheless, that is a different sort of abuse from charge of ethical/legal violation by design.
as for the strategy question, you won't get signal intelligence shut down, because the protest is not fairly representing the intelligence work. certain operations may be altered or curtailed but the basic premise of enabling broad government security presence on the internets isn't going to go away.
the suggestion that nsa should only acquire intel after target has been acquired is rather jejune. signal intelligence is one of the important ways of finding targets and the intended purpose, at least for counterterrorism, is to cast a sort of protective shield. you may say this is overzealous, but think of the millions of people crossing the u.s. border each year. their background investigation is informed by sig int, and a lot of this materialize into denied entries and such in no insignficant numbers.
as for OWS or muslim leaders being threatened, the muslim leaders were reacting to inaccurate reporting wiht respect to what happened with the 'targeting'. they were incidentally connected to queries that were intended to look for muslims with overseas connections. the NSA has strict limit (one of the few explicit no no) on not investigating based solely on first amendment issue. also the fact is that some fringe members of these movements can be radicalized to take violent actions. it's a fair argument as to whether security or speech chilling effect of monitoring is more important, but that there is this tradeoff isn't necessitated by NSA behavior. I am sorry sir, but you are completely sidestepping several of the points made. Temporal discretion is extremely important to understand in the context of surveillance and that is clearly not something you are willing to engage or even understand the distinction of. It may also warrent a look at how far you can push a point without misrepresenting opposing views, but that is an easy error to make... again, recording of data is not the same as active surveillance. sig int is a discovery tool. your point is basically they should only do it when a suspect is identified, but the NSA is about identifying of that suspect in the first place. oneofthem, what would you say if the government would install cameras in every room of every home, which would record everything 24/7 and save said recordings in a gigantic database? Would you be fine with that too, since that's just recording of data?
|
|
|
|
|