Spying?
-
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 20:32 last edited by
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 20:38 last edited by
Shouldn’t he get Fox onboard as a first step?
No idea.
But the annotations on the so-called "denial" are pretty lawyerly, aren't they?
Again, the only thing they explicitly deny is him being an "intelligence target."
Hmmm....I wonder if NSA has other kinds of "targets?"
My limited understanding is that anytime someone, say even an ambassador makes contact with a foreign entity of interest a masked entry occurs. Unmasking to the public is illegal. So the question if TuCa’s allegation is true is that the NSA intnentionally unmasked him..or someone with access leaked it. So maybe NSA has to find the leak or TuCa would know he was targeted by virtue of contacting Putin and is making shit up.
His employer should support him, why are they quiet??
-
Shouldn’t he get Fox onboard as a first step?
No idea.
But the annotations on the so-called "denial" are pretty lawyerly, aren't they?
Again, the only thing they explicitly deny is him being an "intelligence target."
Hmmm....I wonder if NSA has other kinds of "targets?"
My limited understanding is that anytime someone, say even an ambassador makes contact with a foreign entity of interest a masked entry occurs. Unmasking to the public is illegal. So the question if TuCa’s allegation is true is that the NSA intnentionally unmasked him..or someone with access leaked it. So maybe NSA has to find the leak or TuCa would know he was targeted by virtue of contacting Putin and is making shit up.
His employer should support him, why are they quiet??
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 20:41 last edited byUnmasking to the public is illegal.
Is unmasking to other members of the NSA illegal? I don't know.
However, it was revealed that various members of the incoming Trump administration were unmasked as well. How did that become public? Through a FOIA? Again, I don't know.
I can't speak to the reticence of Fox to involve themselves.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 20:42 last edited by
I think Fox may be onboard, or they wouldn't have let him run with the story the way he has.
Just my opinion, but it seems pretty straightforward...TC tries to get an interview with Putin. NSA rightly takes a look at the email to verify nothing nefarious is happening.
TC is identified as Subject #1 or whatever terminology NSA uses to mask a citizen's identity. The emails probably get kicked to an analyst's desk and then to somebody in a supervisory role. If it's determined Subject #1 needs more intensive surveillance, the NSA can go to the FISA court and get permission to do so.
What has happened, is that TC's email did not rise to anywhere near FISA court level stuff, but somebody decided to unmask him and then leak the fact he was communicating with Putin, in order to try to cause negative consequences.
The somebody is really important to know.
-
Unmasking to the public is illegal.
Is unmasking to other members of the NSA illegal? I don't know.
However, it was revealed that various members of the incoming Trump administration were unmasked as well. How did that become public? Through a FOIA? Again, I don't know.
I can't speak to the reticence of Fox to involve themselves.
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 20:49 last edited byUnmasking to the public is illegal.
Is unmasking to other members of the NSA illegal? I don't know.
However, it was revealed that various members of the incoming Trump administration were unmasked as well. How did that become public? Through a FOIA? Again, I don't know.
I can't speak to the reticence of Fox to involve themselves.
Wasn't that revealed through the Carter Page investigations by Mueller and Horowitz?
Regardless, Page's lawsuit against the FBI and Justice Department is still on-going, methinks.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 21:01 last edited by
All interesting convo but until Fox gets on board I can’t expect anyone else to get too excited.
-
All interesting convo but until Fox gets on board I can’t expect anyone else to get too excited.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:17 last edited by
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:20 last edited by
@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
Those annotations look a little like Glenn Beck's infamous chalk-board.
Agreed.
Now, show me where they're wrong.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:27 last edited by xenon 7 Sept 2021, 23:28
I think others have mentioned it here. But we care about privacy now? That ship sailed a long time ago.
I was surprised when the Patriot Act went through. I was surprised at the breadth of the surveillance machine that had been built based on it (as Aqua noted with the Snowden stuff).
This - if true - is small, small completely predictable potatoes, given what we already knew.
No one cares. The time to care was a long time ago.
So many of the post 9-11 government decisions have worked out so poorly for us.
-
I think others have mentioned it here. But we care about privacy now? That ship sailed a long time ago.
I was surprised when the Patriot Act went through. I was surprised at the breadth of the surveillance machine that had been built based on it (as Aqua noted with the Snowden stuff).
This - if true - is small, small completely predictable potatoes, given what we already knew.
No one cares. The time to care was a long time ago.
So many of the post 9-11 government decisions have worked out so poorly for us.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:29 last edited by xenon 7 Sept 2021, 23:38
No one cares. The time to care was a long time ago.
So we should stop.
Right, citizen?
I'd be fine with dismantling the department of homeland security as it exists.
I'm much more comfortable weighting privacy vs. security than the vast majority of the population. I think I'm an outlier on that.
EDIT: an interesting aspect of the Trump administration is that he called into question if the U.S. military and federal law enforcement are worthy of veneration (I think there was always a strain of that on the left). Based on the last 20 years... are they? I don't think the conversation has fully played out in the public sphere though.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
Those annotations look a little like Glenn Beck's infamous chalk-board.
Agreed.
Now, show me where they're wrong.
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:40 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
Those annotations look a little like Glenn Beck's infamous chalk-board.
Agreed.
Now, show me where they're wrong.
We don't actually know what's going on, here. Least-ways, I don't.
It's quite possible that Tucker is right. It's also quite possible he's completely off-base.
And to be h0nest, as a non-citizen I care less about the distinction between American and everybody else than most people here appear to. You're not that special.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
Those annotations look a little like Glenn Beck's infamous chalk-board.
Agreed.
Now, show me where they're wrong.
We don't actually know what's going on, here. Least-ways, I don't.
It's quite possible that Tucker is right. It's also quite possible he's completely off-base.
And to be h0nest, as a non-citizen I care less about the distinction between American and everybody else than most people here appear to. You're not that special.
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:44 last edited by George K 7 Sept 2021, 23:54@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
And to be h0nest, as a non-citizen I care less about the distinction between American and everybody else than most people here appear to. You're not that special.
Because the laws of a country which apply to its citizens should apply to everyone in the country...such as voting, etc?
What rights do UK citizens have that are not applicable to US citizens?
NHS? Can I get "free healthcare" in the UK if I break a leg or need a colon resection? Something tells me I can't.
So, don't give me the "special" stuff. Every country on the planet affords "special" benefits to its citizens. And...every country on the planet affords "special" rights to its citizens.
Want that "special" benefit?
Take the test, pass the test, take the oath.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:55 last edited by
There are some things that are above politics. If we can't agree on this, piss on the campfire and call the dogs, it's over.
It may not have anything to do with politics. Only 32 percent of Americans can name all 3 branches of government. Only 57% know that Thomas Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence.
Social media have richly expanded the capacity of people to be ornery, contentious, wayward, semi-hysterical, blissfully ignorant, if not downright stupid, and fixated on Cheetos.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:59 last edited by
Also - didn't both the Trump and Obama DOJ's surveil journalists? Philosophically, isn't this alleged Tucker incident the same thing?
We just don't care about privacy. This isn't enough to change any meaningful number of opinions on the matter.
And the government isn't in the business of relinquishing power - so nothing's gonna happen here.
-
There are some things that are above politics. If we can't agree on this, piss on the campfire and call the dogs, it's over.
It may not have anything to do with politics. Only 32 percent of Americans can name all 3 branches of government. Only 57% know that Thomas Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence.
Social media have richly expanded the capacity of people to be ornery, contentious, wayward, semi-hysterical, blissfully ignorant, if not downright stupid, and fixated on Cheetos.
wrote on 9 Jul 2021, 23:59 last edited byOnly 32 percent of Americans can name all 3 branches of government. Only 57% know that Thomas Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence.
Being an asshole or a blowhard doesn't remove your rights and protections.
Neither does being an ignoranus.
(that wasn't a typo)
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Also - didn't both the Trump and Obama DOJ's surveil journalists? Philosophically, isn't this alleged Tucker incident the same thing?
We just don't care about privacy. This isn't enough to change any meaningful number of opinions on the matter.
And the government isn't in the business of relinquishing power - so nothing's gonna happen here.
wrote on 10 Jul 2021, 00:02 last edited bydidn't both the Trump and Obama DOJ's surveil journalists
I think so.
James Rosen had his phones tapped, as did his MOTHER.
I'm not aware, at the moment of the Trump administration doing it, but you're probably right.
The fact that Trump did it, or Obama did it doesn't make it right.
Now, that said, the surveillance of press under the previous administrations is different (I think) from the NSA harvesting emails.
Or is it?
-
@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
And to be h0nest, as a non-citizen I care less about the distinction between American and everybody else than most people here appear to. You're not that special.
Because the laws of a country which apply to its citizens should apply to everyone in the country...such as voting, etc?
What rights do UK citizens have that are not applicable to US citizens?
NHS? Can I get "free healthcare" in the UK if I break a leg or need a colon resection? Something tells me I can't.
So, don't give me the "special" stuff. Every country on the planet affords "special" benefits to its citizens. And...every country on the planet affords "special" rights to its citizens.
Want that "special" benefit?
Take the test, pass the test, take the oath.
wrote on 10 Jul 2021, 00:08 last edited by Doctor Phibes 7 Oct 2021, 00:08@doctor-phibes said in Spying?:
And to be h0nest, as a non-citizen I care less about the distinction between American and everybody else than most people here appear to. You're not that special.
Because the laws of a country which apply to its citizens should apply to everyone in the country...such as voting, etc?
What rights do UK citizens have that are not applicable to US citizens?
NHS? Can I get "free healthcare" in the UK if I break a leg or need a colon resection? Something tells me I can't.
So, don't give me the "special" stuff. Every country on the planet affords "special" benefits to its citizens. And...every country on the planet affords "special" rights to its citizens.
Want that "special" benefit?
Take the test, pass the test, take the oath.
I have no wish to take the test, and I don't mind not voting. Them's the rules.
I'm not that keen on the idea that I can be spied on due to an accident of birth. Not sure what the rules are, there, or whose rules they are for that matter.
