[1001101]

> Do you really believe the CIA gives a shit about what you have to say?

As we learned from the Snowden leaks, surveillance is being conducted on a massive scale under the purview of a secret court that rubber stamps whatever comes across its desk, and not in a targeted manner as in your bug argument.

I still have a right and desire for privacy, which is not a function of whether or not the CIA, or anyone, cares what I say or do.

This level of clairvoyance is too much power for any one person or group to have, and is of what Orwell and others have rightly warned us.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you seem uninformed.

All of the information we saw from the Snowden leaks was passive interception of lines they had a legitimate need to tap. What they did, which I dont agree with, was intercept all the data and analyze it to deduce likely targets, rather than explicitly targeting data to capture. That was the entirety of the Snowden leaks: they're overly broad in their selection criteria because they wanted to run targeting filters instead of having to pick targets before intercept.

That's a whole different sport from pretending they tap every computer in the world with spy tools. Legally, ethically, and practically.

So I think you (and sibling comments) are simply uninformed, delusional, and making up wild, unreasonable accusations based on emotion, not rational thought.

[3131s]

> That was the entirety of the Snowden leaks

Is that so? So the NSA did not secretly collect all data from the unencrypted fiber between Google and Yahoo's data centers? And the NSA never paid RSA Security 10 million dollars to back Dual_EC_DRBG as part of the broader program Bullrun intended to subvert and weaken cryptographic protocols that underlie our national security and critical online infrastructure? You are aware that the Snowden documents discuss intelligence agencies outside the US as well, and detail our coordination with these agencies? What about spying on allied foreign world leaders? Gag orders placed on the largest companies on earth? Parallel construction?

I am almost skeptical that you are intentionally understating the significance of what the Snowden documents revealed.

[willstrafach]

He appears to be correct. Much was editorialized, so legit issues got mixed up with false statements.

> So the NSA did not secretly collect all data from the unencrypted fiber between Google and Yahoo's data centers?

I recall mentions of this, but do you have a source for your "all" claim here? As that would be a bit different than passively watching for specifically tasked IPs (or other selectors).

> And the NSA never paid RSA Security 10 million dollars to back Dual_EC_DRBG as part of the broader program Bullrun intended to subvert and weaken cryptographic protocols that underlie our national security and critical online infrastructure?

I believe this was theorized based on something that did look legitimately concerning in a Classification guidance document, but this was not substantiated within the leaks. Did new material come out which substantiated this claim?

> You are aware that the Snowden documents discuss intelligence agencies outside the US as well, and detail our coordination with these agencies?

We definitely partner with agencies outside of the US, this is not a secret.

> What about spying on allied foreign world leaders?

This was also certainly in the leaks. Countries gather intelligence on other countries, whether that is for nonproliferation reasons, understanding military intentions, or other reasons. People are free to believe that this shouldn't happen, but again, not much of a secret.

> Gag orders placed on the largest companies on earth?

What are you referring to here? Collection for FISA targets, or something else? Not very clear (We probably do agree with it being problematic).

> Parallel construction?

This was in articles about the leaks, but I do not believe there was any material in the leaks which indicated that this was a known practice (versus a theory of what might happen).

[3131s]

You seem to be right about parallel construction as practiced by the DEA/NSA. That revelation came out in a Reuters' report in 2013 rather than from the Snowden leaks.

Regarding gag orders, I'm referring to National Security Letters. Google, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. all received them with corresponding gag orders.

The NSA's documents when referring to the collection on those unencrypted fiber lines use the terms “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume”. Perhaps they do not duplicate and store everything, but they certainly have access to everything, which is not much better.

You can read more about Bullrun on Wikipedia. It seems there is much known definitively about it, and it's the source of the statement I made almost verbatim.

You may not find some of the content of the leaks surprising, but many do, and I was treated like a conspiracy nut for years and years for even broaching the subject. The extent of the coordination with foreign intelligence agencies, while also not surprising to me, is highly significant because it presents an obvious loophole to the whole "we don't spy on American citizens" with the unspoken addendum being "(but our allies do, and we can access that data whenever)".

Maybe you and I have pretty different notions about what is acceptable in terms of "intelligence" gathering. I believe that all spying, whether on Americans or foreigners, is wrong. I want to see the NSA, CIA, DIA, and organizations like them splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds, to borrow a phrase.