backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Jun 15 at 12:42 PM


  (Source: CNN)
Homeland Security committee member things freedom of the press in the U.S. is growing tiresome

What do President Barack Obama (D) and Rep. Peter King (R- N.Y.) have in common?  They are none too happy about the sources and the journalists involved in the publication of secrets on the NSA snooping on Americans.

I. Forget Freedom of the Press, Says Rep. King

In an interview with Anderson Cooper last night, Rep. King, who sits on the House Homeland Security committee, said that Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian and other journalists involved in the publication of details of the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) program to secretly spy on Americans should be charged and face prison time.

He comments:

Actually, if they willing knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude.  I know that the whole issue of leaks has been gone into over the last month. I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.


President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has reportedly carried out campaigns to spy on a Fox News reporter who was involved in the publication of leaked intelligence details on North Korea.  In that case, AG Holder signed early documents suggesting that the journalist -- James Rosen -- was considered a "co-conspirator" to the leaker and could face criminal charges.  The effort to charge the journalists was ultimately dropped as the investigation proceeded, but drew substantial criticism.

Eric Holder
AG Eric Holder has considered charging journalists in previous leaks. [Image Source: AP]

AG Holder also supervised a program to monitor dozens of Associated Press phone lines in an effort to hunt down the person who leaked details of a foiled bomb plot.

The Obama administration has charged more than twice as many whistleblowers with Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 792) offenses as all the previous administrations before him (since the Act was passed in 1917) combined.  But he's only been able to do that thanks to support of the practices by members of Congress, including House Republicans like Rep. King.

II. FBI Works Towards Charging Whistleblower

News of the long rumored NSA spying -- funded by Barack Obama's "big data" spending program -- broke last week.  Details of two programs -- a narrow, more aggressive program dubbed PRISM and a broad, ubiquitous unnamed phone records seizure program leaked.  According to the Obama administration the PRISM effort involved the seizure of email and chat records, but was meant to target suspected terrorists -- most foreigners -- and was limited to a small number of individuals.

By contrast the phone records seizure tracked the majority of U.S. citizens -- including those who never communicated with a foreigner and never were suspected of committing a crime.  The Obama administration sought to downplay this spying saying it was "only metadata".  However, that "metadata" contained records of who you talked to and when, plus tracked the locations of citizens on a daily basis.

Both programs were authorized under the Oct. 2001 USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act.

FBI masked agent
The FBI is drafting chargers against the leaker, and possibly journalists.
[Image Source: Alamy]

On Sunday, the leaker outed himself as Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the NSA who worked at Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp (BAH).  Rep. King was among the first to call on him to be charged.  The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is rumored be currently drafting up those charges.  Mr. Snowden is rumored to be holed up at a safe house in Hong Kong.

Source: CNN on YouTube



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally!
By mikeyD95125 on 6/12/2013 4:13:07 PM , Rating: -1
Our government finally got back to business working together to F*** over the American people, and we deserve it!

I just wish our overlords were better looking...




RE: Finally!
By ianweck on 6/12/2013 4:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
Speak for yourself. I don't deserve it.


RE: Finally!
By mikeyD95125 on 6/12/2013 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, my bad.

What did you vote for Mitt Romney? Or Ron Paul?
Or did you start a political blog??
Orrr did you sign several online petitions???

If you're a citizen, it's your government and people get the government they deserve.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2013 12:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't vote for any of those jackasses.

My first candidate, Herman Cain was thrown under a bus by his own party (the Republican) and set up by them with plants and conspiracies.

My second candidate, Newt Gingrich lost the nomination (but won my State at least).

Screw Obama and Romney. Neither of them were worthy of my vote.

Note: When write-ins are allowed, I generally vote for Elvis Pressley. The King lives!

Yes, the people get who they deserve. It is shameful that most of them don't give a darn enough to pay attention and DEMAND representation of 3rd parties on major media networks. Of course, since the Democrat and Republican parties own them, this will never happen.


RE: Finally!
By stilltrying on 6/13/2013 6:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Still believing in fairy tales. Keep on voting for those put in front of you that are own and controlled. Voting will not change this. Why do we have to have slave masters?

Rape victims supporting their rapers. Governments sole existence is based upon FORCE. Force to kill, force to tax, force to steal, force to regulate.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2013 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Fairy tales? The need for third parties being properly represented is not a fairy tale, it is reality!

quote:
Governments sole existence is based upon FORCE. Force to kill, force to tax, force to steal, force to regulate.


What's your point here? The NSA is watching, btw. I read between the lines and see what you mean but it would require Americans willing to abandon the coddling they have and embrace the uncertain unknown before them.

It'd be a big step and end this cycle we are in but people have to be willing to sacrifice and go all in with their efforts and dedication.


RE: Finally!
By Piiman on 6/15/2013 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Fairy tales? The need for third parties being properly represented is not a fairy tale, it is reality!"

But your first two picks were from the Republican Party?? LOL nothing like practicing what you preach.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/14/2013 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Newt Gingrich lost the nomination

Newt is as bad or worse than Romney. He is clearly a racist and have terrible relations with the public besides white males.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/14/2013 10:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
He's no more racist than our current President--or the general public who likes to play the race card anytime anything is said about any race at the opportune moment.

In other words--the whole damn "racist" term is used far too often.

In no way was Newt worse than Romney. For one thing he doesn't have mega-millions and for another, he isn't utterly out of touch with the general population. I'd take him any day over Romney. Romney was a worthless sack of crap that was pushed on us by the mainstream media because they knew he couldn't win the presidency on the ballot. What is sad is the American public bought into it and... viola, he won the nomination.

Face it, we are slaves to the media until we learn to think for ourselves.


RE: Finally!
By conq on 6/13/2013 9:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, my bad. What did you vote for Mitt Romney? Or Ron Paul? Or did you start a political blog?? Orrr did you sign several online petitions??? If you're a citizen, it's your government and people get the government they deserve.

Oh I didn't know each political candidate was voted into office by a 100% margin! Gee whiz, I do deserve it! </sarcasm>


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 4:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... You, if the reps in Congress and the White house are all agreeing on an issue, you know its going to f@#$ us.

Its especially unnerving because it doesn't work.
Look at Boston, they were even warned about the guy from the Russian govt. and looked into him and still couldnt stop it. I dont fault them for that, its impossible to stop all acts of violence in a free society... But to be monitoring on this level is inexcusable , even if it did help, and it doesnt.

Safety is an illusion. It doesnt exist and there are no guarantees in life. We used to have a garantee on freedom, but not any more... The scary thing is they arent even backpeddling and trying to lessen the effect. The are kind of in our face saying. "yes, we are watching and listensing to the public... What are you gonna do about it" - 1984 much?


RE: Finally!
By MozeeToby on 6/12/2013 5:09:22 PM , Rating: 5
Here's what people don't realize. Killing people, even lots of people, is trivially easy. It doesn't take a lot of money, or training, or a huge terrorist network. It doesn't even require access to real weapons. All it takes is a willingness to kill others and not care about the consequences to yourself.

Why is it so important that people realize that? Because the more you think about that fact the more you realize two things. First, there are very, very few terrorists in the world, simply put, if there were more terrorists there would be more attacks. Which leads to the second point, it's really, really hard to catch a terrorist before they act.

Why is this? Lets imagine you watch everyone. That's 350 million people in the US alone, plus who knows how many foreign nationals coming and going or that have physical access to American targets overseas, lets call it a cool 500 million. Then lets say there are 1000 terrorists in the world that want to attack American civilians (personally I suspect that is grossly overstating their numbers).

Now, lets imagine you get all your data and you come up with an absurdly good filter, such that your false positive rate is just .01% and your false negative rate is just 10% (incidentally, those numbers are absurdly, unrealistically good). That means your algorithm will flag 50,000 people to be worth watching. Of those, 900 will be actual terrorists.

Except, you don't have the resources to watch 50,000 people. You don't have the resources to even investigate that many. Oh, and plus you've also let 100 terrorists through your filter.

You ask how they could have missed the Boston bombers when they were alerted to them years ago? Because they were probably alerted to several thousand 'potential terrorists' years ago too, the vast majority of which turned out to be nothing but idiots spouting online, people with weird tourist destinations, or people doing things that foreign governments don't approve of.

Mass surveillance cannot succeed because the numbers just don't work.


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 5:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agreed. I wasnt saying they should have stopped the Boston bombers, I was saying the same as you, its impossible to stop it all.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 12:36:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But to be monitoring on this level is inexcusable , even if it did help, and it doesnt.


Bro, you need to realize that they can't really monitor people. They can only target specific individuals because of the scale. Almost all the time, it's not because you popped up on the filter. It's usually because you were reported by someone or they are investigating someone else and you were found to be working with those individuals.

Just think about it. I've been posting all kinds of stuff here and there from a federal computer(every single one is constantly monitored) and I have not received anything. None of you here posting all kinds of anti government crap have ever received a phone call or knock from the FBI/CIA have you? That's because they are not monitoring you. They have the potential to but it doesn't mean they are. Even if you were reported, chances are you are not even going to be investigated. Someone will glance at what was reported and determine you to be another antigovernment person practicing your free speech.


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/13/2013 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, I am well aware of the limitations and the way they use it and its still not right. There is a process for this, if they have reason to suspect someone, they get a warrant and pull their cell internet or whatever other records. Now they can just pull anything they want on anyone. That goes against the very foundation of this country. It's complete and total BS. Our govt is getting out of control.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 2:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
You have an irrational fear. Your free speech is protected. Your privacy is protected.

You do realize that almost all cases starts because someone reported you and the evidence is certified to be credible? not just a couple things but a whole list of criteria.

The reason why some antigovernment organizations are investigated or monitored is because many people reported them. There are plenty of organizations here in DC that have no problems with any type of authorities. The authorities even help them protest if they choose to do it peacefully.

quote:
That goes against the very foundation of this country.

Sure if you say so but that's your opinion. You can vote on it just like I can. All i can tell you is times has changed. Technology has changed. People have changed. Enemies and their methods have changed. Warfare have changed. Everything have changed drastically

quote:
It's complete and total BS. Our govt is getting out of control.

I can name you at least 20 countries with governments out of control. We are saints compared to them. Even the beloved EU, like what most people here like to compare to, is worse than we are. Privacy, taxes, rights? they actually have less.

I've met and worked with people around the world. The vast majority of them would prefer the US over theirs. The ones that prefer their country better simply because they grew up there and that's their home. Every single exchange student, contractors, and visitors I've met have mentioned how much more freedom and tolerance we have here. I went to civilized countries like Germany where some restaurants still refused to serve me because of my skin. You gotta visit the real world outside of the tourist spots.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 1:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, there are very, very few terrorists in the world, simply put, if there were more terrorists there would be more attacks.


Wrong.

There have been, literally, over ten THOUSAND terrorist attacks world-wide since 9-11.

The huge majority of these, obviously, has not been in America.

So that tells us two things:

1. There are more than a "few" terrorists.
2. Whatever we're doing is mostly working.

Now I'm totally NOT okay with mass surveillance. But clearly other methods are working at keeping us relatively free from this plague.

And the Boston bombing wouldn't have even happened if people did their freaking jobs and followed up on a direct FBI warning. But probably because of some stupid PC bs about not wanting to "profile" people involved with Islam, they were let go.

p.s.

quote:
Then lets say there are 1000 terrorists in the world that want to attack American civilians (personally I suspect that is grossly overstating their numbers).


Assuming that number is right, which I doubt, guess why that is?

Because we killed thousands of them first in Afghanistan and Iraq!


RE: Finally!
By stilltrying on 6/13/2013 6:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Terrorism can be defined by anyone. The US govterments definition is drastically different from some lady in Pakistan whom had her house bombed by a drone which killed her 2 year old son.

So you might as well multiply your number by about 10,000.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 1:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Pakistani government agrees with us and allowed us to send drone attacks within their borders. Every single attack is also authorized by them. Case dismissed, you are wrong.


RE: Finally!
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 7:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Whatever we're doing is mostly working.


What we're doing is having an ocean seperating us from the Middle-East or North Africa. Unless someone decides to tow the US to the other side of the Atlantic or otherwise make it easy to move from there to here I believe you'll find the vast majority of attacks happen over there.

That's not the government acting, that's just geography.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 9:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
LOL right, we have an estimated 20+ million illegal immigrants who, with no outside support, managed to get into this country.

So yeah, you're right, that big bad ocean just foils the terrorists every time. Even with an organized network and massive monetary funds backing them, they just can't get over here. /sarcasm

And all those reports of the plots we've foiled? And those are just ones the public is made aware of. What then?

To say NOTHING the Government has done has been effective, at all, in protecting us is just hogwash. Again, I'm very much against what the NSA is doing here. But just stating a fact, there HAVE been legitimate victories.


RE: Finally!
By Invane on 6/13/2013 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even the government hasn't been able to produce numbers saying how effective their measures have been. Hell, with all their preventative measures (AND a tipoff by foreign intelligence agencies) they still weren't able to stop Boston from happening.

What are all these foiled plots you speak of? Because I've seen very few. Every time the government has been asked to show it's effectiveness, they've backpedaled and stonewalled.

I agree with lagomorpha. It's far easier to go bomb something in your backyard than to try to fly around the world to bomb something, and that's the real basis for the numbers you're using. It takes resources and planning to go beyond your home region. On the other hand, you only have to have a crazy hair up your ass to decide to go blow something up locally. I am very surprised to see you attempting to attribute it to how good our government is at protecting us.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 1:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, it's really simple guys. We know we're on the top of the most hated country list simply because of our military and economic power. And...we can't keep our nose out of other nations' businesses.

We all clearly know the amount of illegal immigrants is high. We also know people are willing to risk their lives to get here. We also know there are plenty of terrorist organizations aiming for us and have been for decades.

The result. We still have one of the lowest terrorist activity rate in the world.

You can form your own conclusions but the ocean separation is a major factor against a conventional warfare invasion, it is a minor factor preventing terrorist acts.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 2:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
BRB29, I'm not a conspiracy theorist because it's hard to get actual facts to prove that stuff, but given our politicians track record in during my years, no...just, no. The kinds of individuals so out of touch with the modern world still running our gov't should not have this kind of power. No not everyone is crooked, but this type of broad power is just too much for people that we vote into office. I don't completely disagree with your feeling that we need these police powers to keep us safe, but what makes you so incredibly sure these powers will be abused?? Given what we've watched over the recent years, you're comfortable with this? When we as a society know for sure that those we vote into power won't betray us and abuse their executive powers, then I'd feel safe giving the authorities these surveillance abilities.

But seriously, who are you trying to kid?

These politicians cannot turn down the mighty dollar, even the non-crooked ones can't outshine their phoney peers. You might say if I'm so afraid to give up these powers cause they "might" be abused, then we should we give these powers if they "might" keep us safe.

That line everyone keeps saying, "a little bit of safety, traded for your rights, you deserve neither." To me it rings true because it's silly to give up your rights to the hands of politicians that are so out of tune with reality. Do you ever watch politicians vote on topics they often know nothing about? It's a total circle jerk.

SOPA/CISPA -- we barely know how to use the internet, but we'll vote on it anyway because the industry experts (MPAA/RIAA) know this is how to fix counterfeit goods/piracy. All the major tech companies that think they know the internet like Hollywood, but politicians saw right threw the techies, Hollywood/mpaa/riaa/insert-lobbyist know best.

Reading what you write BRB29, you seem to have a lot of reasoning in your beliefs. You remind me so much of how I used to think, and that anything else everyone said was a conspiracy theorist or just plain looney, but the years have whittled my moral-high-regard for our gov't far too thin. I don't know how you can still trust most of these guys.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
BRB29, I'm not a conspiracy theorist because it's hard to get actual facts to prove that stuff, but given our politicians track record in during my years, no...just, no. The kinds of individuals so out of touch with the modern world still running our gov't should not have this kind of power. No not everyone is crooked, but this type of broad power is just too much for people that we vote into office. I don't completely disagree with your feeling that we need these police powers to keep us safe, but what makes you so incredibly sure these powers won't be abused?? Given what we've watched over the recent years, you're comfortable with this? When we as a society know for sure that those we vote into power won't betray us and abuse their executive powers, then I'd feel safe giving the authorities these surveillance abilities.

But seriously, who are you trying to kid?

These politicians cannot turn down the mighty dollar, even the non-crooked ones can't outshine their phoney peers. You might say if I'm so afraid to give up these powers cause they "might" be abused, then we should we give these powers if they "might" keep us safe.

That line everyone keeps saying, "a little bit of safety, traded for your rights, you deserve neither." To me it rings true because it's silly to give up your rights to the hands of politicians that are so out of tune with reality. Do you ever watch politicians vote on topics they often know nothing about? It's a total circle jerk.

SOPA/CISPA -- we barely know how to use the internet, but we'll vote on it anyway because the industry experts (MPAA/RIAA) know this is how to fix counterfeit goods/piracy. All the major tech companies that think they know the internet like Hollywood, but politicians saw right threw the techies, Hollywood/mpaa/riaa/insert-lobbyist know best.

Reading what you write BRB29, you seem to have a lot of reasoning in your beliefs. You remind me so much of how I used to think, and that anything else everyone said was a conspiracy theorist or just plain looney, but the years have whittled my moral-high-regard for our gov't far too thin. I don't know how you can still trust most of these guys.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, failed editing 101.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 8:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am very surprised to see you attempting to attribute it to how good our government is at protecting us.


Why must I be all or nothing here?

If you can't separate the clear over-reaches by our Government in the name of fighting terrorism, with the clear successes, that's your issue not mine.

To sit here and say we never stopped a thing is not only foolishly wrong, it's a lie.

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

And this is just the first link I Googled.

quote:
Even the government hasn't been able to produce numbers saying how effective their measures have been.


Gee I wonder why? Maybe because releasing that information would compromise operations and reveal methods to the terrorists?

However if I can sit here and Google terrorist plots foiled on the freaking wikipedia, I'm starting to doubt that the Government ever made such a statement. Can you find it for me?

quote:
I agree with lagomorpha. It's far easier to go bomb something in your backyard than to try to fly around the world to bomb something


Soooo 9-11 was, what exactly? Practice for "backyard bombing"?

The simplistic and almost apathetic logic you guys are using here is just so out of tune with the reality we can all observe....it's just shocking.

Again, I'm not saying "Government is great, let them wiretap you, everything is fine." I keep saying I'm against that. If people can't understand that and continue to have this kneejerk reaction, I can't have an open debate.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
BREAKING NEWS!!

The Atlantic Ocean is doing it's job.


RE: Finally!
By flashback_rtk on 6/13/2013 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
You are a fucking imbecile


RE: Finally!
By Piiman on 6/15/2013 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 1
With such a well thought out response I'm thinking you are dumber than an fucking imbecile


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki