Author Topic: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage. (Read 388895 times)

Renegade · « **Reply #375 on:** October 13, 2013, 02:35 AM »

Upcoming interview - Woz on the NSA:

http://rt.com/news/w...rview-apple-nsa-121/

RT finds out what Apple’s Wozniak thinks of the NSA leaks scandal [PREVIEW]

Should be interesting.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #376 on:** October 15, 2013, 04:09 PM »

Not exactly Snowden, but def in these lines:

(Lifted heavily from Slashdot)

DOJ: Defendant Has No Standing To Oppose Use of Phone Records
Posted by Unknown Lamer on Monday October 14, 2013 @08:01PM
from the defense-is-futile dept.
An anonymous reader writes with news of a man caught by the NSA dragnet for donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature. The man is having problems mounting an appeal. From the article: "Seven months after his conviction, Basaaly Moalin's defense attorney moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence collected about him under the government's recently disclosed dragnet telephone surveillance program violated his constitutional and statutory rights. ... The government's response (PDF), filed on September 30th, is a heavily redacted opposition arguing that when law enforcement can monitor one person's information without a warrant, it can monitor everyone's information, 'regardless of the collection's expanse.' Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court." This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them.

http://cdn.arstechni...13/10/Opposition.pdf

Renegade · « **Reply #377 on:** October 16, 2013, 11:27 AM »

Not sure if I posted this. Saw it a couple days ago:

http://www.wired.com...urvive-surveillance/

Richard Stallman chimes in on the topic.

The current level of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights. To recover our freedom and restore democracy, we must reduce surveillance to the point where it is possible for whistleblowers of all kinds to talk with journalists without being spotted. To do this reliably, we must reduce the surveillance capacity of the systems we use.

More at the link.

IainB · « **Reply #378 on:** October 17, 2013, 10:20 PM »

This video tries to sum it all up: Tell Congress and President Obama: "Knock it off and stop the NSA surveillance programs

...Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court." This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them.
-TaoPhoenix (October 15, 2013, 04:09 PM)

The US government police/SS agencies probably didn't see that they had much option but to do what they have done. In order to fulfil their duty to "protect and serve", or whatever, they have had to override the constitution. It has probably by now been irrevocably broken, and there's not much likelihood of going back to the former status.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #379 on:** October 18, 2013, 05:04 AM »

...
police/SS agencies probably didn't see that they had much option but to do what they have done. In order to fulfil their duty to "protect and serve", or whatever, they have had to override the constitution. It has probably by now been irrevocably broken, and there's not much likelihood of going back to the former status.
-IainB (October 17, 2013, 10:20 PM)

The problem is that the *Constitution* is *supposed* to be the tie breaker document, and end all discussion!

So when agencies "get uppity" and violate the constitution, that's exactly like me holding a gun to your head and making you divide by zero then publishing a result.

(Typical RP)
"No I won't divide by zero! You can't do that!"
"Yes. Yes you will. And you have thirty-eight seconds to do it."

IainB · « **Reply #380 on:** October 18, 2013, 06:25 AM »

Well, good luck anyway.
If I hear a loud BANG!, I won't expect to hear any more from you.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #381 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:51 AM »

Well, good luck anyway.
If I hear a loud BANG!, I won't expect to hear any more from you.
-IainB (October 18, 2013, 06:25 AM)

Oh not me. More like our country. Witness things like "with hours left, the congress signed a deal that would grant the country the ability to pay bills for three more months while essentially giving the Republicans who started the whole mess, nothing."

Just go look up some YouTube clips on Poker and imagine a Country on the line.

AFTER that, when I die because our country imploded and we are in any of 14000 Apocalypse SciFi landscapes, it's been nice knowing you!

Renegade · « **Reply #382 on:** October 19, 2013, 12:14 AM »

This video tries to sum it all up: Tell Congress and President Obama: "Knock it off and stop the NSA surveillance programs
-IainB (October 17, 2013, 10:20 PM)

I just came across a public showing of the short film at the We Are Change YouTube channel:

IainB · « **Reply #383 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:13 AM »

^^ Heh. Very droll.

How about this?
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Government Program to Control Religious Thought?
Ben Swann Infowars.com Oct. 16, 2013

Is the U.S. Government working on a program to…well…program the way you view religion?

A whistleblower who has worked on that program says yes and he wants you to know exactly what has been going on.

The first towards truth is to be informed.

If I told you that the Defense Department was using taxpayer dollars to learn how to influence people with religious beliefs in order to control those beliefs, would it really surprise you?

Would you think that I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist?

Would you care if I told you that the program was aimed at controlling fundamentalist Muslims?

How about fundamentalist Christians?

Here’s the backstory. In 2012, Arizona State Universityʼs Center for Strategic Communication or CSC was awarded a $6.1 million dollar research grant by DARPA or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The goal of the project according to ASUʼs website is to “study the neurobiology of narrative comprehension, validate narrative theories and explore the connection between narrative and persuasion.”

A lot of technical talk there, so lets dig into the details.

The CSC program is actually about creating narratives. Using effective communication, largely video, to control the thought process of groups of people. And ultimately to be able to trigger narratives through magnetic stimulation. At its core, the program is focused on how to win the narrative against Muslim extremism. It’s a fairly interesting concept.

According to documents leaked to us, this project integrates insights from three mutually-informing theoretical terrains.
In short, the goal of the program is to combat and change religious narratives because of their role in “extremist behavior.” The whistleblower who revealed this program to us, worked for several years on the program. They asked not to be identified.

Ben: What were you told about the proposal as you began working through it?

Whistleblower: Yeah, I thought that it was benign. They told me it was about trying to figure outwhat parts of the brain are affected by narrative persuasion. Just to figure it out just for academic reasons. So we looked at narrative transportation which is basically how an individual is transported into a narrative, how they understand it…kind of like when you read a good book you get really enthralled with it.

At its core, the program attempts to map the brain to determine which portions of the brain allow you to accept a narrative presented to you. It’s called narrative theory.

Mapping this network will lead to a fuller understanding of the influence narrative has on memory, emotion, theory of mind, identity and persuasion, which in turn influence the decision to engage in political violence or join violent groups or support groups ideologically or financially.

You see, the project is focused on the belief that the reason Muslims in the Middle East are swayed to religious violence is not because of the reality of what is going on around them per se, but because they are believing a local or a regional narrative.

Ben: The local and regional narrative then is that the brain automatically assumes things because of a narrative we’ve been taught since our childhood, is that it?

Whistleblower: Right yeah that’s true. We call those master narratives. So in America we have this “rags to riches” master narrative where if you work really hard you can become successful and make a ton of money. So in the Middle East, they always use the example of the Pharaoh. That’s the master narrative that’s in the Qur’an, where there’s this corrupt leader that, you know, is really bad for society. And they use the example of Sadat who was assassinated. When
the assassin killed him, he said, “I have killed the Pharaoh, I have killed the Pharaoh.” So they assume that he was relying upon this Islamic master narrative to fuel his actions.

So how does the program change this? Again a lot of technical speak here so stay with me. But it’s broken into three phases.

Phase I is to map the Narrative Comprehension Network using a set of stimuli designed from the point of view of two different religious cultures.

Phase II will test hypotheses generated in Phase I, adding two additional manipulations of narrative validity and narrative transportation.

Phase III, it investigates possibilities for literally disrupting the activity of the NCN through Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Ben: Phase III is fairly interesting. I noticed in the documentation it says lets not talk too much about this because who knows if we’ll ever get there. But when you do read what Phase III is it is a little surprising, it’s called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. This is not something that’s science fiction, it’s not something they’ve cooked up. This is a real technique that’s already been used in the past, correct?

Whistleblower: Yes, it started out in the psychiatry field when people were depressed and when you’re depressed certain parts of your brain are not functioning correctly. So they created this technology, which is basically a big magnet, and you put it on their brain and it turns off that part of the brain that’s bad or wrong and it would help them with their depression for several weeks to a month and they’d go back and do it again. So this technology has been around for ten
or fifteen years.

Ben: So it’s very high tech propaganda, what we’re talking about.

Whistleblower: High tech and validated propaganda, yes. So if they’re able to turn off a part of the brain and get rid of that master narrative that will make you not believe in a particular statement, they would have validated this propaganda. So if they turn off portion X, they know that the propaganda is going to work and the individual is going to believe whatever is being told to them.

So why do all this? Because the project is based on the idea that despite the good work of the U.S. in the Middle East, the message of the work is not being received.

“The frequent rejection of US messaging by local populations in the Middle East, despite US insistence on the objective truth of the US message, illustrates the narrative paradigm at work. The well documented ‘say-do gap’ between US messages and US actions is seen by some as contributing to a lack of narrative validity in stories produced by the US. Similarly, stories of US aid do not ring true in a culture wherein Christian foreigners, since the 11th Century, have been invaders and sought to destroy and rule.”

So how to fix this?

Ben: How do you move someone from simply watching a video or seeing a video all the way down that line to behavior? It’s a pretty powerful tool if you’re able to do that.

Whistleblower: Right, so they think that maybe an extremist statements or a video like Al Qaeda puts out will lead to some individuals doing a suicide bombing, for example. So they’re trying to look at this video or the statements and take away a part of your brain that will think that it fits in with your culture or master narrative and that will hopefully lead you to not do these extremist, violent acts.

So what you need to know is that this program boils down to one central idea. If people aren’t reaching the conclusions the U.S. government would like them to reach, there must be a way to force them to accept these narratives.

Remember that the claim is that the U.S. despite giving aid is viewed in the Middle East as invaders. That, according to the program research is the product of embedded narrative, not a result of action.

So the view of the U.S. as invaders in countries where we have standing armies, dozens of military bases, the U.S. paying off drug lords in Afghanistan or regional warlords in Iraq or where we consistently bomb via drone strike in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia or where we fund dictators until those dictators are overthrown and then attempt to fund the rebels, who end up becoming dictators.

All of that has nothing to do with the U.S. view of Muslims in the Middle East because clearly they are missing the fact that the U.S. gives aid.

The next step, control the narrative and if necessary, use magnetic stimulation to force people to accept the view of the U.S. that we desire them to have.

After all, aren’t extremist Muslims dangerous? Extremist Christians? See the problem with the question is who gets to define extremist? Who decides if religious beliefs are inherently dangerous?

And if we believe that government should have the power to control how the extremist thinks… wouldn’t they have the authority to decide how and what we all think?

Sources:
We cannot post the leaked documents from the program here because ASU has claimed intellectual
property infringement.

This article first appeared at benswann.com.

Food for thought? (Heh. Weak pun.)

Renegade · « **Reply #384 on:** October 19, 2013, 06:49 AM »

How about this?
...
Food for thought? (Heh. Weak pun.)
-IainB (October 19, 2013, 05:13 AM)

Yeah - I saw that over at AP (Activist Post).

The new AP!

That's simply way too much power for anyone. It's obscene.

cmpm · « **Reply #385 on:** October 19, 2013, 05:03 PM »

using religion, no doubt that's always in play for the chosen 'ekklesia'
religion/government = the mental conditioning of self righteousness

IainB · « **Reply #386 on:** October 21, 2013, 04:56 PM »

Looks like another casualty.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

CryptoSeal VPN shuts down rather than risk NSA demands for crypto keys
Complying with US law while protecting user privacy a tough task, company says.
by Jon Brodkin - Oct 21, 2013 7:05 pm UTC

A consumer VPN service called CryptoSeal Privacy has shut down rather than risk government intrusions that could cost the company money in legal fees and threaten user privacy.

CryptoSeal will continue offering its business-focused VPN, but the consumer service is done, the company announced:

With immediate effect as of this notice, CryptoSeal Privacy, our consumer VPN service, is terminated. All cryptographic keys used in the operation of the service have been zerofilled, and while no logs were produced (by design) during operation of the service, all records created incidental to the operation of the service have been deleted to the best of our ability.

Essentially, the service was created and operated under a certain understanding of current US law, and that understanding may not currently be valid. As we are a US company and comply fully with US law, but wish to protect the privacy of our users, it is impossible for us to continue offering the CryptoSeal Privacy consumer VPN product.

VPN services let consumers gain extra privacy and security while using the Internet. A user establishes an encrypted connection with a VPN service, routing all Internet traffic to the VPN before sending it on to the rest of the Internet.

Some VPN services promise only protection from common hackers, which is useful for people seeking extra security while surfing the Web on public Wi-Fi networks. To hide one's traffic from Internet service providers or governments, people look to VPNs that promise not to keep any logs that might reveal what they use the Internet for.

CryptoSeal's description of its business VPN service says it's not designed to hide information from the government. "CryptoSeal Connect is not designed as a BitTorrent or other file-sharing VPN and is not designed to give you anonymity against the legal system," the company said. "We fully comply with all warrants and subpoenas and are located in the United States. We suggest using systems such as the Tor Project for anonymity requirements."

The possibility of handing cryptographic keys over to the government is a troubling one, though. "For anyone operating a VPN, mail, or other communications provider in the US, we believe it would be prudent to evaluate whether a pen register order could be used to compel you to divulge SSL keys protecting message contents, and if so, to take appropriate action," CryptoSeal wrote.

Lavabit case raises troubling legal possibilities
The company referred to the case of Lavabit, an e-mail service that shut down rather than comply with government orders to monitor user communications. A legal filing in that case raises a possibility that is troubling for CryptoSeal. Specifically, it describes "a Government theory that if a pen register order is made on a provider, and the provider's systems do not readily facilitate full monitoring of pen register information and delivery to the Government in realtime, the Government can compel production of cryptographic keys via a warrant to support a government-provided pen trap device," CryptoSeal wrote.

"Our system does not support recording any of the information commonly requested in a pen register order, and it would be technically infeasible for us to add this in a prompt manner," CryptoSeal continued. "The consequence, being forced to turn over cryptographic keys to our entire system on the strength of a pen register order, is unreasonable in our opinion and likely unconstitutional. But until this matter is settled, we are unable to proceed with our service."

CryptoSeal is investigating "alternative technical ways" to comply with US law without sacrificing user privacy, but in the meantime it is offering customers refunds as well as "one year subscriptions to a non-US VPN service of mutual selection" and "free service for one year if/when we relaunch a consumer privacy VPN service." CryptoSeal also encouraged people to donate to a Lavabit legal fund.

We've contacted CryptoSeal to ask why it's able to keep its business service open but haven't heard back yet. Selling to enterprises is more lucrative than selling to consumers, of course, providing one possible reason CryptoSeal chose this route. Another factor is that businesses seeking a VPN service may be more concerned about security from hackers than about hiding Internet activity from governments and Internet service providers.

A comment on Hacker News apparently posted by CryptoSeal founder and CEO Ryan Lackey points to the cost of legal services being one of the main factors.

"The financial issue was the potentially huge liability due to a legal action or battle, not the (small) costs of operating the service," Hacker News user "RDL" wrote. The service "was covering operating costs and some profit," but the risk of defending against a government order would have wiped that out.

"If we were the legally best VPN option, I would probably have pushed to keep it going anyway and just shut down when/if that happened, but as it is, non-US providers run by non-US people (there are several good ones) are an objectively better option, so in good conscience there's no reason to continue running a US privacy VPN service without technical controls to prevent being compelled to screw over a user," RDL wrote.
____________________________________

The effect of the omnipresent spread and compulsion of the NSA's surveillance powers would seem to be the self-destruction and thus effectively prohibition of high-strength ICT and data security services in the US.

I recall a security telecomms boffin explaining to me years ago that when encryption was introduced and made commercially available in modems, it was of a relatively low standard and strength as permitted by the US DoDefense, or something, because they could crack it, if need be. High-strength military-grade encryption was not permitted for public/commercial use.
In similar manner, high resolution/accuracy in GPS technology was not permitted for public/commercial use until around 1998.

The US would thus seem to be effectively making for itself a backward wastleland for the domestic telecomms and data security sector, causing a stimulation and migration of technology overseas, which is enriching/fertilising the technology of that sector in overseas markets.
Other nations are already establishing their own GPS satellite networks.
These look rather like aspects of the decline of the US Empire, but the decline seems to be being strenuously self-inflicted in this case. I wonder whether this was/is part of intentional government policy?

Renegade · « **Reply #387 on:** October 25, 2013, 10:01 PM »

Looks like more cracks are forming:

http://thecable.fore...fort_to_restrain_nsa

An effort in the United Nations by Brazil and Germany to hold back government surveillance is quickly picking up steam, as the uproar over American eavesdropping grows.

The German and Brazilian delegations to the U.N. have opened talks with diplomats from 19 more countries to draft a General Resolution promoting the right of privacy on the Internet. Close American allies like France and Mexico -- as well as rivals like Cuba and Venezuela -- are all part of the effort.

The push marks the first major international effort to curb the National Security Agency's vast surveillance network. Its momentum is building. And it comes as concerns are growing within the U.S. intelligence community that the NSA may be, in effect, freelancing foreign policy by eavesdropping on leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel.

More at the link.

tomos · « **Reply #389 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:51 PM »

Yeah, there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up by Merkel due to her mobile telephone bing 'tapped'. It will help, but it could have some more 'omph' to it imo.

I'm been following it on the radio. From a google search:
http://www.huffingto...apped_n_4150812.html

The European government complaints are all a bit wishy-washy, due I suppose to the reality that every government is doing it - it's just they're shocked how much the NSA is doing. But they cant state that so baldly in their official complaints, e.g.:
"Guys, we know you like to peek; we like to peek a little too - but guys, this is going, like, *too* far..."

Yet this sounds potentially very good:

Looks like more cracks are forming:

http://thecable.fore...fort_to_restrain_nsa

An effort in the United Nations by Brazil and Germany to hold back government surveillance is quickly picking up steam, as the uproar over American eavesdropping grows.

The German and Brazilian delegations to the U.N. have opened talks with diplomats from 19 more countries to draft a General Resolution promoting the right of privacy on the Internet. Close American allies like France and Mexico -- as well as rivals like Cuba and Venezuela -- are all part of the effort.

The push marks the first major international effort to curb the National Security Agency's vast surveillance network. Its momentum is building. And it comes as concerns are growing within the U.S. intelligence community that the NSA may be, in effect, freelancing foreign policy by eavesdropping on leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel.

More at the link.
-Renegade (October 25, 2013, 10:01 PM)

so hopefully that's the 'omph' ;-)

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #390 on:** October 26, 2013, 09:00 PM »

In more "Snowden-esque" news:

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?hp&_r=2&

"Federal Prosecutors, in a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps as Evidence
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: October 26, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department for the first time has notified a criminal defendant that evidence being used against him came from a warrantless wiretap, a move that is expected to set up a Supreme Court test of whether such eavesdropping is constitutional."

---

If I didn't know better, this feels someone made a mistake, because up until now they were going all "if I deny it hard enough I can make it true".

Now if they *admit it*, then they're going for the blatant angle "haha, we've got the lock on the whole system, so what do we care about little things like the Consitution or those silly Supreme Justices".

Renegade · « **Reply #391 on:** October 26, 2013, 09:23 PM »

Yeah, there's a bit of a fuss being kicked up by Merkel due to her mobile telephone bing 'tapped'. It will help, but it could have some more 'omph' to it imo.
-tomos (October 26, 2013, 12:51 PM)

Hehehe! Yep. The cracks are spreading...

Here's a Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.c...dUSBRE99P08G20131026

President Barack Obama told the German leader he would have stopped it happening had he known about it.

i.e.

He has admitted it
He has admitted that it is wrong

That's a big deal.

In an SCS document cited by the magazine, the agency said it had a "not legally registered spying branch" in the U.S. embassy in Berlin, the exposure of which would lead to "grave damage for the relations of the United States to another government".

i.e. The US is running black ops out of the US embassy in Berlin.

Man... this is some really juicy stuff!

Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung also said Obama had told Merkel he had not known of the bugging.

i.e. The POTUS isn't the one running the country... So who is?

Merkel's spokesman and the White House declined comment.

"We're not going to comment on the details of our diplomatic discussions," said Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council at the White House.

i.e. We've screwed the pooch so badly that the only thing we can do is hide. Well, that and you don't deserve to know, stupid serfs.

So, what's the buzz at the watercooler? Probably something about "Dancing with the Stars"... $:-\$ Any wonder why we're "stupid serfs"?

Renegade · « **Reply #392 on:** October 26, 2013, 09:25 PM »

In more "Snowden-esque" news:

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?hp&_r=2&

"Federal Prosecutors, in a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps as Evidence
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
-TaoPhoenix (October 26, 2013, 09:00 PM)

I like Charlie Savage. He's got some really good stuff that he's published. I think that one story in Athens woke him up a bit.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #393 on:** October 27, 2013, 11:03 AM »

President Barack Obama told the German leader he would have stopped it happening had he known about it.

i.e.

He has admitted it
He has admitted that it is wrong
-Renegade (October 26, 2013, 09:23 PM)

More high stakes bluffing Renny.

Because today's news says ... wait for it ...

German media: Obama aware of Merkel spying since 2010
http://news.yahoo.co...eport-092009842.html

"Berlin (AFP) - US President Barack Obama was personally informed of phone tapping against German Chancellor Angela Merkel, which may have begun as early as 2002, German media reported Sunday as a damaging espionage scandal widened.

Bild am Sonntag newspaper quoted US intelligence sources as saying that National Security Agency chief Keith Alexander had briefed Obama on the operation against Merkel in 2010.

"Obama did not halt the operation but rather let it continue," the newspaper quoted a high-ranking NSA official as saying.

News weekly Der Spiegel reported that leaked NSA documents showed that Merkel's phone had appeared on a list of spying targets since 2002, and was still under surveillance weeks before Obama visited Berlin in June. ..."

We need a name for this kind of "the old way of political lying isn't working so well anymore when the refutation can spread like wildfire"! It's a Superset of what they used to call the Streisand Effect, but that term was applied more to local embarassments by people.

This is far higher stakes.
1. VIP #1: "I did not know about X. I would not have allowed X if I had known about it."
2. Reporter: "Here is a copy of your top secret clearance briefing from three years ago that formally notified you of X."
3. VIP #1: "Uhh..." (Looks panicked at the teleprompter for a desperate spin-doctor saving move.)

Renegade · « **Reply #394 on:** October 27, 2013, 11:23 AM »

More high stakes bluffing Renny.

Because today's news says ... wait for it ...

German media: Obama aware of Merkel spying since 2010
http://news.yahoo.co...eport-092009842.html

"Berlin (AFP) - US President Barack Obama was personally informed of phone tapping against German Chancellor Angela Merkel, which may have begun as early as 2002, German media reported Sunday as a damaging espionage scandal widened.
-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2013, 11:03 AM)

HAHAHAHAHAA~!

THAT.IS.AWESOME!

Oh man... I'm going to LOVE these fireworks! With any luck, they'll burn down the Reichstag and the White House AGAIN!

(Yes... I know... it's a joke.)

Reminds me...

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #395 on:** October 27, 2013, 12:56 PM »

"Don't make the Internetz angry. You wouldn't like the Internetz when it gets angry!"

IainB · « **Reply #396 on:** October 28, 2013, 07:11 AM »

I find this all hard to believe. It's surreal.
However, if it is all true, then the current POTUS, who might already be under serious public scrutiny for foul-ups on his watch, has apparently been outed by his own public statements being contradicted by his own government functionaries, showing him up as having been lying over the matter of the NSA surveillance at least, if not some other stuff as well.
I find that amazing - that his own government functionaries could seem to have so blatantly outed him:

US denies Obama knew of Merkel spying
...Bild am Sonntag newspaper quoted US intelligence sources as saying that America's National Security Agency chief General Keith Alexander had briefed Obama on the operation against Merkel in 2010. ...

Maybe he's been chosen as the one to be thrown under a bus.

Renegade · « **Reply #397 on:** October 28, 2013, 07:54 AM »

Maybe he's been chosen as the one to be thrown under a bus.
-IainB (October 28, 2013, 07:11 AM)

Could be.

General Keith Alexander is reportedly moving out of his position as head of the NSA. Hmm... Bus avoidance strategies?

dr_andus · « **Reply #398 on:** October 28, 2013, 07:58 AM »

However, if it is all true, then the current POTUS, who might already be under serious public scrutiny for foul-ups on his watch, has apparently been outed by his own public statements being contradicted by his own government functionaries, showing him up as having been lying over the matter of the NSA surveillance at least, if not some other stuff as well.
-IainB (October 28, 2013, 07:11 AM)

Lying is part of everyday diplomacy of negotiating conflicting demands; we all do this in our daily realities, so it's unrealistic to expect that somehow politicians should never ever lie.

I think the more interesting issue is that the security apparatus thought they can subdue this new technology (the internets and wireless tech) and abuse it for their own purposes, and it's now the very pliability and versatility of the same technology that exposes their malfeasance (defined as the breaking of the constitution and the moral code--or at least its semblance--of friendship with allies). Now suddenly it doesn't look all that clever to be using information technology for absolutely everything--just because you can.

Renegade · « **Reply #399 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:21 AM »

Lying is part of everyday diplomacy of negotiating conflicting demands; we all do this in our daily realities, so it's unrealistic to expect that somehow politicians should never ever lie.
-dr_andus (October 28, 2013, 07:58 AM)

But when we lie to them, we go to prison.

Sorry. I don't buy it at all. No lying. Period. Ever. Categorically. Imperatively.

You just Kant lie.