backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Dec 13 at 12:40 PM

Obama is trying to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has been attacked all year for its spy programs, which were revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden -- and the agency could use some love from President Barack Obama. 

According to The Washington Post, the NSA's morale has taken a beating ever since the Snowden revelations, and many former officials say that current NSA employees are disappointed that Obama hasn't stopped by to provide some encouragement. 

“The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it’s been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,” said Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006. “They feel they’ve been hung out to dry, and they’re right.”

Other former NSA officials, who have asked to remain anonymous, said morale is "bad overall" and that many employees are asking to have their résumés wiped of any surveillance programs in order to gain employment elsewhere. 

“The news — the Snowden disclosures — it questions the integrity of the NSA workforce,” said a former NSA official who chose to remain anonymous. “It’s become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, ‘Why are you spying on Grandma?’ And we aren’t. People are feeling bad, beaten down.”

Some former officials have even mentioned that former President George W. Bush visited the NSA in January 2006 after the New York Times reported that the agency engaged in a counterterrorism program of warrantless surveillance in the U.S. 


Obama has sent top White House officials to the NSA to speak for him in an effort to offer encouragement. But many believe he hasn't made the trip himself because he needs to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil. In addition, internal and external reviews of surveillance activities have not yet been completed. 

Obama has said that the NSA’s surveillance is lawful in June of this year, and showed interest in preserving the intelligence programs. However, he's also mentioned making some changes so that there's greater transparency.

Snowden blew the cover on the NSA's surveillance programs earlier this year, which consisted of bulk data collection from sources like phone records, where the government took on a "collect now, filter later" approach. The agency has said that the bulk data collection was meant to identify terrorist threats, but it's been discovered that the data of Americans has been collected without any clear evidence of terrorist links. 
 
In August, reports said that the NSA admitted to touching 1.6 percent of total globe Web traffic. Its technique was to filter data after harvesting it, which led to over-collection on a major scale. It was later revealed that Snowden conned between 20 to 25 NSA employees to give him their login credentials and passwords while working at the NSA regional operations center for a month in Hawaii last spring. Snowden reportedly told the NSA employees that he needed their passwords in order to do his job, and after downloading secret NSA documents, he leaked the information to the media.
 
Many top tech leaders, like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, have spoken out against the NSA's programs along with civil-liberties advocates, U.S. citizens and even other countries that had the NSA peeping in their window. 

Just yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA and its UK sister agency GCHQ sent agents into the virtual worlds of the Xbox Live network, World of Warcraft, and Second Life to find acts of terrorism. 

Source: The Washington Post





Comments     Threshold


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

RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/2013 12:36:37 AM , Rating: 0
quote:
The government is becoming a rogue entity looking out for itself instead of the people.

That's what you get if voters only listen to polarized news, like from Fox or NBC.

The biggest problem in the US is the totally broken news organizations, how can people make sound judgments, if the only have polarized news.

The argument is made that people are vastly too stupid to understand what is being said.

And of course they are!!!

How can they not be, if kids learn at school that Creationism is a real science.

And when the news is delivered by companies like News Corp, that has run down every serious news outlet it got its hands on, from a serous news source to infotainment fluff papers and channels, and news that purposely twist the truth(1).
(1) www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+purposely+twisting

Owned by the worst modern day robber baron(2) that has no problem running competitors in to the ground by stealing there intellectual property(3), and cry at politicians that there is stolen by consumers, and want if possible the dead senescent for those pesky consumers that dear to steal from him!
(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron
(3) www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/murdoch-tv-hackin g

That man has done more damage to modern society then Hitlers Germany did in the 40s, at least most of the Nazis did it out a believe that they ware doing it for the Fatherland and improving the world (even do it was a very very twisted view of one), Murdoch dose it because he is sociopath that gets off on controlling people, and getting even more money that he dose not need anymore.

But how dare you say Murdoch is worse then the Nazis!
almost all comparisons whit the Nazis are flawed by definition!, and maybe here also, but imho Murdoch done the last 45 years more damage to the world then the 15 years the Nazis ware in power, and will properly change how independent news is brought forever, and i believe good and solid independent news is a fundamental pillar for a civilized society, that the man has completely destroyed.

Because Murdoch's media Empire dose only destruction of the informed mind!

Ware parts of the Nazis ware just evil, i think if i believed in a god, i would call Rupert Murdoch the incarnation of the devil him self, as he seduces the people to not see the evil around them, and promote greed is good, and even if they see it, he dose everything to take the power away from them to change it, by demoralizing peoples mind, just see how delusionized people are about politicians, giving them a sens of what ever i vote it never gone change anyway so why would they care.

Rupert Murdoch owns hundreds of major media outlets including ultra conservative Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and he's using his media power to help his oil buddies stop governments acting to curb their profits. In the US alone, most of the climate stories from Murdoch's select papers mislead readers about global warming and many other subjects.

Start watching Fox, and the same subject on a more dependable news outlet like BBC, and compare how both bring the news, and i am not saying the BBC never gets it wrong, but at least they are trying to be neutral when they bring the news.

If i would be offered to go back in time, but i could go only once, and had to pick between killing a young Hitler and Murdoch, it would be a hard pick, but i would pick Murdoch.

Why?, because imho Murdoch is responsible for many of the problems we have to day, because Murdoch's Newcorp failed to do its job, covering the real news, and only generate infotainment!

Newscorp is imho reasonable for most of the polarization in the world now a days, and the public cynicism about politics, because if they really did and knew there job, politicians wouldn't get a way whit most the shit they do now a days!

And things like allowing banks to use money from there core business, to speculate on stock market, one of Clinton's biggest fails, was there ever even a discussion in the news about lifting the law that prohibited banks to use money from there banking business, to speculate?

Not saying its all Newscorps fault, but they are really the worse of them, Newscorp started to make infotainment more profitable then real news.

And how can people make a well informed opinion, if they don't have reliable information sources!

Ware the Nazis believed what they ware doing was to progress the human race, Mordoch dose all what is in his power to regress the masses, and make them stupid polarized entertainment and infotainment junkies!

So whats worse?, i am not sure, but imho Murdoch done more harm then Hitler ever did, only Murdoch dose it from the dark, ware with Hitler you can point your finger at the concentration camps, that dose not mean the damage Murdoch has done is not real, it means its much harder to fight his evil then Hitlers.

And compared to Murdoch, Joseph Goebbels was just a nice amateur.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 12:45:22 AM , Rating: 1
Yes of course, Fox news is the problem. Not the 60+ years of completely Liberal dominated media and newspapers....

quote:
If i would be offered to go back in time, but i could go only once, and had to pick between killing a young Hitler and Murdoch, it would be a hard pick, but i would pick Murdoch.


......

wow!

Do you know how crazy that sounds? The Holocaust killed 6+ million people, ON TOP of the body count from his war of conquest.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 1:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah silly me but I kind of think genocide is pretty damn evil, yeah. Ranks just a bit higher on the evil list than running a news network.

Comparing Hitler to Murdock is just extremist insane babble. Seek help, you sound crazy.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/2013 9:01:33 PM , Rating: 1
I am not saying its not evil, i am saying that the man destroyed journalism for the biggest part.

And with that, polarized the world, what is the reason that:

- Politics is out of control and in the pockets of the banks and corporations is.
- America started the second Gulf war.
- The division between the west and Muslims is bigger then ever.
- Journalism has become extreme polarized.
- His journalist just plain out twist and lie about the truth.

Good journalism is one of the biggest pillars of the checks and balances of our leaders and what corporations do in the world.

And he destroyed it completely, and he is one of the biggest reasons the world is in the mess it is today.

What the Nazis did to the world was like a bad broken bone, but after it was over, the world got healthier, This never again!
Murdoch on the other hand is like a cancer, he is rotting the world from the inside, and he is bin doing it for decades, and there seams no cure for what he is doing.

So imho the impact of what Murdoch's News Corp is doing on the world is worse then what the Nazis did, or are you going to say you like the world you live in today, because he is one of the biggest architect of that world


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2013 11:28:36 AM , Rating: 1
You seem to be ignorant of history.

Politics has always been in the pocket of banks, since always.

Hearst did more to fuck up journalism than Murdoch ever will.
The US started the Spanish American war based on his propaganda.

The division between the western world and the Muslim world is actually smaller than it has been throughout most of history. Remember WWI? Remember Moorish Spain? Remember the Crusades? Remember the fall of the Byzantine Empire?

In short; you have no idea what you're talking about. You've based your political ideologies on ignorance. Get an education.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/12/2013 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct if you look at the history in your time span.

But after WWII news organizations starting to do there job right, Murdoch fucked it up even more then its was before.

And ware there even in the time of the Spanish American war descent newspapers, and if so what good would they have done if 90% of the people cant even read!

I am talking modern history from WWII till now.

quote:
The division between the western world and the Muslim world is actually smaller than it has been throughout most of history.


Actually after WWII that division was a lot smaller, and i remember when in the 80s over problems in the middle east there also in the newspapers historical reasons ware given about problems in the middle east, now a days the news is more and more polarized.

I should have none better, most people cant seem comprehend what damage the destruction of good news outlets means for the world, because how can people make good educated opinions if even the source of there information is polymerized bias crap.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2013 5:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault. I also find Murdoch to be a bad influence, but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama ;p and so on. Not even close.


By michael67 on 12/12/2013 8:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault.

You right, but the sad part is, the mass is mostly ignorant, not because they don't wane be, but because they are followers, and they follow the people that make them feel best, so even do there are people that know better we are out numbered 50 to 1 or so.

quote:
but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama

Do you know what all those people have in common?

Bad working news outlets!

Murdoch is the new propaganda prime minister for his buddy's the rich and the scrupulous.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By boeush on 12/12/2013 8:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why it's Murdoch's fault that his faux "news" networks have done so well.

His networks and tabloids would not exist, were it not for the stupid/demented consumer base that actually prefers Murdoch's toxic sludge over objective journalism. The people simply don't want to be made to think or learn: they just want to kick back with a can of beer and passively suck up Murdoch's nocturnal emissions, and for these people such a thing constitutes fun or enjoyment or whatever.

If reasonable people boycotted Murdoch's swill, and if reasonable people were the overwhelming majority, then Murdoch would be in the poor house. So don't blame him; blame your fellow humans. We collectively get what we ask for, and what we deserve -- in journalism and politics alike.


By michael67 on 12/13/2013 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on that, but Murdoch's toxic sludge, could also be just truthful sludge.

Even do i prefer dumbed down infotainment news, but even infotainment can be truthful, Murdoch's toxic sludge leaves really noting truthful left if it is not in his interest.

And he just spreads FUD and hatred in the world, just to benefit him and his rich buddy's, because dumb masses are easier to control.

That's why imho Joseph Goebbels is a amateur compared to what he dose to the world.


By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
Haha! Not very rational, are we? (I would have picked Stalin, btw)


By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
It actually sounds like your definition of evil is Rupert Murdoch. I'd disagree and say there's worse.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By rpsgc on 12/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 8:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
Wow a holocaust denier too? This is bringing out ALL the crazies!


By bitmover461 on 12/11/2013 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Trampling Constitutional rights must be viewed as an extremely serious abuse of government. "I'm just doing my job" is no excuse, same as Nazi soldiers where were also "just doing their job". The outcome of our abuses are less tragic, but not by much. The ideals of the founding fathers are for the most part just quaint phrases in history books.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
has been disproved by, wait for it, serious historians
The Nazi's weren't stupid and did their level best to hide this stuff. Pretending there's a single number that's absolutely correct is... ridiculous. It's not hard to find many, many "serious historians" that would support a much higher number. The citations section of the Wiki article links to a few, and finding more is not difficult, either.

Giving one reference, saying it's the absolute truth, and then comparing anyone who disagrees with you to a flat-earther makes someone look ignorant... and it's not the person you were disagreeing with.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
6 million... 3 million... even if it's somewhere in between, how is it not worse than just publishing halfassed journalism?


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yikes... I was arguing with his assertion that he knows the absolute truth about the Holocaust thanks to an old encyclopedia article.

The Holocaust is MUCH worse than half assed journalism. In a rational discussion, no one would even be comparing them.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I was agreeing with you.


By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ah... sorry.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By retrospooty on 12/11/2013 12:09:35 PM , Rating: 6
"So where are the other 3+ million alleged deaths?"

You do realize those are just the large camps right? Many were killed on the spot and by other methods. In total, after it was done, there were appx 6 million less Jews in Europe.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 1
And about 3 million people of color, no less tragic.


By boeush on 12/12/2013 8:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Right, it always irks me that the Holocaust is somehow a Jewish-only tragedy when in point of fact it also involved the Gypsies, the homosexuals, anyone with a birth defect, the Communists, as well as anyone with a skin that wasn't quite white as a baseline. The Jews were a majority of the slaughtered -- and also the noisiest group of survivors -- but they were far from the only group targeted or severely devastated...


By KCjoker on 12/11/2013 6:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I seriously hope you're trolling. If not you are just plain ignorant.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki