Hacker News Reader

Comment by grandalf | Hacker News Reader

While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.

The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not focused on the core issue.

It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.

View on HN

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case

You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?

If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.

> If that's the type of monitoring you mean

Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.

> holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"

For what it's worth though, I do think the lowly "average Joe" you mention does deserve to be quite irate about his fourth amendment rights being thrown away.

> Not at all. I mean that any number of people inside the intelligence organizations could have opted to "wiretap" Trump

This is not true. The system will not allow you to just query a US Person, and will automatically flag such requests for review if you try to do so. Even if an analyst conducted "reverse targeting" (Querying a foreign person who the US Person was communicating with), the US Person's information within the intercept(s) is automatically minimized and specific approval would be needed to de-anonymize it, including solid proof that the US Person was actually acting as a foreign adversary, such as a spy.

I have no ability to argue that there is not a conspiracy involving multiple people in NSA approving these and OGC turning a blind eye to it and the senate intel committee ignoring it and so on, that is not impossible I suppose, but the reality is very far from simply having the ability to go ahead and wiretap Trump with ease.

> and there would have been no audit trail and no warrant.

There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI"). This is good, because if you do believe that something awry is going on, you can push for a very specific cause: Put together an independent committee of representatives, have them go through the security clearance process (for those who have not already done so) to be read-in on any necessary SCI compartments to review the data, and conduct a thorough investigation regarding the audit trails of any query regarding Trump and/or associates. I personally find this to be far-fetched, but it is at least a tangible action which you and anyone who shares the belief can push for.

How do you know this?

> There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI").

What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?

Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:

- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?

- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?

- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?

I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.

Here's another perspective on Snowden's claims https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-ciphe...

He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks.

From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.

> He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files.

I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself.

My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.

Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls.

As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.

> My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.

This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.

> people want you to have.

Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?

I believe that was a (not so nice) way of saying that Snowden had intentionally exaggerated his history in order to establish himself as more of an authority on these matters regarding things he did not actually have access to.

Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.

The documents agree with the person you're arguing with and disagree with you and Snowden.

examples? There was not really any press vetting of the information so it's been difficult to evaluate the claims.

I do think it's troubling that major news orgs won't go near the details.

> What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?

I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...).

> Which agency is the process you described applicable to?

NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap.

> Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?

I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious).

> Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?

I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!").

> the FISA warrant argument

If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it:

1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest.

2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI.

3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation.

This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much.

There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points.

One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump.

It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance.

If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president.

I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election.

I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.

I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.

However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.

> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.

Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.

But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.

Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.

>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party

No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.

>If there had been evidence

There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty

He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.

The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.

> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.

I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.

But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence.

This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements.

> not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.

This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence.

My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.

The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government.

In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out?

One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.

It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.

Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling.

> My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.

This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.

> this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.

True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric.

And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.

Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.

> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.

I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east.

All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.

Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response.

On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation.

Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors.

And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.

Now, why is that?

> U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.

I think this statement needs to be flushed out a bit to understand the absurdity of it. What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it, other than a series of PR stunts intended to keep everyone distracted.

>ignoring Russia's rhetoric

What rhetoric are you referring to?

> confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response

What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".

There will be a situation where a hack or computer virus unleashed against US interests triggers retaliation in the form of missiles. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later. The US would rather this happen sooner to avoid a messy ethical debate and the associated delays.

Just as it took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam to the point where GWB asking that he step down and being refused seemed like justification for missiles and bombs, it will take a while to create enough consent among the US public to allow our leaders to send strikes in retaliation for hacking.

Right now, vague Russian meddling is our "training wheels" phase. We're meant to be indignant, and to align against Russia. The next time there won't be as much vagueness and there will be more obvious harm (not just embarrassment).

Leaders of democracies are shackled by the need to convince the people that war is necessary. The widespread apathy that helps our leaders in most cases turns against them when it comes to warmaking, and a lot of effort must be undertaken to turn us against a foe to the point where we'd sacrifice anything.

Drone wars, and other relatively inexpensive, indirect war methods are a way to maintain apathy while still projecting force, but an adversary like Russia is powerful enough that techniques like this won't work and the public will have to be engaged and will have to consent.

I'm not arguing that this hawkish, war-making stance is against US interests. I'm not making a claim about that.

>What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it

LOL. That would make you the only person on the planet in that category. Whatever your value judgment of the actors, it's completely disingenous to just pretend there are no patterns.

>What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid?

Seriously? Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I could reply further, but I'm trying to stick to things that actually happened vs. imaginary scenarios.

And, in all of this, you keep advocating that it's the U.S.'s responsibility to simply stand down.

>Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".

You contradicted your previous statement by now asserting that there actually is a difference that requires propaganda to conflate.

>took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam

You keep invoking that. FWIW, I and many other Americans disagreed with the Iraq war. That doesn't mean we now believe that we should let any adversary undermine our democracy and attack us with impunity. You don't seem to appreciate the difference.

Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.

>We're meant to be indignant

Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.

You seem to completely underestimate the resolve of average Americans when aroused. The disinformation campaign has some off-balance. That won't last.

> pretend there are no patterns.

The only pattern is this: Trump says something outrageous and gets the media focused on what he said. This continues until he says another outrageous thing, attracting attention at will. He's like a human teasing a cat with a bamboo pole with a piece of yarn attached.

I don't assume any motive other than to control media attention. GWB used this technique when Rumsfeld said various outrageous things (such as about torture), and WJC used the technique effectively during his scandals.

What is Trump's motive? Certainly his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot, not to (stupidly) telegraph some sort of quid-pro-quo with the Russian government.

> Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking?

I am not making the claim as my own view, simply stating that one of the objectives of all this is to get Americans to take cyber warfare seriously. The likely scenario for cyber attacks are surprise attacks on infrastructure that will not be easy to attribute blame for, so the public must be ready to suspect the likely foes so that consent for military action can be granted in a timely fashion.

> Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.

This is a silly comment. Of course Americans want America to be successful. I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US has had toward Russia which, if it is in fact part of Russia's strategy, the election meddling fits into, as does the vilification of Russia.

> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.

Yet in this case the "attack" simply revealed one of our pols to be a bit more corrupt and dishonest than anyone realized. It's hard to say whether this actually harmed the US. FWIW the closure of the Clinton foundation after donations dried up following the scandal suggest that it was a gray market campaign finance scheme.

> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.

I figured you represented the right-wing view, and yes, the American right is very hawkish about Russia.

>The only pattern is this...his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot

LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete and it's not just his public rhetoric, but backchannel nods that were not intended to be revealed for public shock or otherwise, and favorable RNC platform changes and beyond.

And, all of this in the context of Russian election interference, designed to rig the election in his favor. He long-denied that rigging, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, even he was finally forced to admit the intelligence agencies had it right. Still, here you are.

Sorry. Real things happened that can't be dismissed as pot-stirring rhetoric.

>not to (stupidly) telegraph

One would think it would be stupid, but then, here you are trying to shill for him in spite of it.

>I am not making the claim as my own view...

In one sense, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said.

But, you seem to have thoroughly confused yourself here vis-a-vis your original asinine assertion, which was that Clinton likely would have responded militarily to Russia's election-meddling. Now, you're throwing in stuff about later cyber-attacks on infrastructure, etc. that would precipitate such a response. BTW, that "Clinton would have started WW3" rhetoric is exactly the fear-mongering coming out of Russia during the campaign. Funny how you are in complete lock-step with Russian propaganda.

>I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US...

I don't. I just look at what's happening now.

Most Americans actually want an investigation. But, even those who don't aren't so starkly anti-American/pro-Russian as you.

>This is a silly comment

I would say more corny than silly, but I just wanted to help you understand how most Americans feel about our country, since you don't seem to be familiar with that.

>I figured you represented the right-wing view

By "right-thinking", I meant correct or clear, not politically right. It's a figure-of-speech. I'm hardly a hawk. But, the real question is what are you, exactly?

> LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete...

Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down. Obama did not view Russia as a threat and took significant criticism from those who did. The factions cross party lines. Rubio is vehemently (absurdly) anti-Russia, as is McCain. McCain called for escalation, perhaps military action when Russia invaded the Caucuses and Crimea. HRC shares McCain's and Rubio's stance on Russia. Trump apparently shares Obama's and during the campaign indicated he would likely be even more open to normalized relations with Russia.

Note that Trump has reversed course on many (if not the majority) of his campaign promises. He is very unlikely to consider any policy that would alter the balance of power between US, NATO and Russia.

The issue is that because the US has not been able to keep Putin in check, the balance of power is shifting in Russia's advantage. Putin would happily drag the US into a proxy war in Syria and a proxy war in Iran. Trump is taking the bait on Iran, HRC took the bait on Syria.

No matter which proxy war the US gets into, Putin gains strength.

The US did not act to stop Putin's aggression in Crimea or the Caucuses and even hawks like McCain and HRC realize it is probably too late to prevent the inevitable rise of Russia relative to a struggling Europe. Trump may or may not realize this yet. I think his campaign rhetoric was mainly a PR strategy and has little bearing on the policy the US actually follows during his time in office.

As Europe struggles, Russia will seek to re-align with former Soviet bloc nations and offer favorable trade options, etc. The US does not have the will or the resources to thwart this, and by not intervening over the past few years, the US has sent a message to those nations that it does not have their back.

HRC and McCain realize that the longer the US waits, the harder it will be to threaten Russia militarily. Obama's sanctions were the last arrow in the quiver. Russia is in no hurry now that the momentum is in Russia's favor.

HRC did everything possible to send the message to Putin that the US would engage fully in Syria and not put up with anything. But what will the US do besides spend 10x or 100x what Russia spends in a Syrian nation building disaster? Meanwhile, Russia makes inroads into Iran and works the other angle.

It's important to keep in mind that the reason the US invaded Iraq was mainly to get there before Russia did. During the Soviet era, the Iran/Iraq war left the region vulnerable, and after the Soviet Union fell there was a period when the US didn't really worry too much about it. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait offered the US an excuse to project power there, but before long Russian firms had trillions of dollars worth of oil extraction contracts in Iran and Iraq, and Russia was on track to gain undue influence in the region, since there was no actual loyalty to the US.

GWB invaded Iraq and took the first step, and he snubbed Russia by restricting the spoils only to firms from coalition countries. This was basically stealing from Russian firms and giving the loot to coalition countries, all in the name of the "freedom" of the Iraqi people.

Soon it became clear that the US was over-extended in the middle east. The American public was tired of the costly wars, and the idea that the US was able to successfully nation build and bring freedom was becoming more and more obviously hollow.

So Russia focused on aligning with Assad and with Iran. Obama tried to prevent the situation in Iran using a carrot, HRC wanted to prevent the situation in Syria with a ground war.

The key point is that Trump will be forced to take a stance on both of these and it is fairly unlikely that he'll act in a way that benefits Russia over the medium term. European nations have a lot of influence in the US, and most do not want a more powerful Russia.

We don't know how far along the path of brinksmanship a US hawk would take us, but Trump is navigating to ward the brink with Iran. If there is a coherent policy taking shape, he might try to make a deal with Russia allowing Russia's influence in Syria to continue, but he's just as likely to renege on the arrangement as Putin is, so I don't think it really changes the strategic equilibrium or the inevitable transformation Russia into a power having clout that is a bit closer to the level it has known for most of European history.

>Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down...Trump apparently shares Obama's...

That proposition treats the decades since the wall came down as static, without any action or directional policy shifts in Russia, U.S. or the world. You later acknowledge, without truly accounting for, dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and direct attacks on U.S. democracy.

And, certainly, you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia or, for that matter, that Trump's position (including rhetoric and concessions) are like those held by any serious U.S. official in that sphere. Whatever you think of their "hawkishness", HRC, McCain, etc. aren't the odd ones here. Your guy is.

In general, your recounting of recent history and your purported estimation of Trump's position and future intent leaves out an entire universe of conspicuously related facts; thus your conclusions are just wrong. Sprinkling in somehwat cogent nods to a few facets of the current geopolitical situation does nothing to obscure this.

> Your guy is.

I'm not defending Trump. His campaign strategy was to say somewhat ludicrous things and then when challenged, double down on them, thus amplifying the PR impact. To be quite clear, for every person who socially shared an article slamming one of Trump's ridiculous statements, perhaps 90% of their friends agreed, but the message also reached the 10% who approved of Trump's approach, or saw in it evidence he was not part of the establishment.

While I abhor Trump's approach of appealing to the worst parts of human nature (bigotry, fear, etc.) to rally support, it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career called for a "physical barrier" between the southern US and Mexico, and focused her talking points on "criminal aliens". Yes, HRC was playing to fear and bigotry when she said those things, just as Trump was when he called for a wall and described immigrants as "rapists". Trump brought a new level of crassness to something that had existed before but was spoken about in tones of moderation even though the intended audience read between the lines and found (and was animated by) the bigotry.

> you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia

This is not the point of my comment. What I meant was that no president really has the power to dramatically shift US policy toward Russia, there are too many interest groups involved. The two main factions, those who are willing to accommodate Russia's adolescent mischief (led by strong man Putin taking the country for an authoritarian joy ride), and those who wish to send a signal that it will not be tolerated.

We've had 8 years of the former, during which time Putin has had quite a joy ride. Trump is inclined to let it continue, while HRC would likely have tried to put a stop to it one way or another. It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump in terms of policy. The revelations about alleged Russian meddling date back to July 2016, and according to the article you linked, it was known about for years prior. Yet Obama declined to impose sanctions, preferring instead some sort of back-channel communication (if any response at all).

Obama's decision to impose sanctions two weeks before the end of his term was likely a nod to the prevailing Democratic Party view, which Obama had not attempted to shape during the campaign. He had to be loyal to his party, and likely did the least consequential thing he could, sent a few people home and imposed sanctions that would be awkward for Trump to remove, etc.

So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric (as I think it is wise to ignore most of what politicians say, and instead focus on what they do), he is staying the course 100% with Obama's policy. Let's wait until there is actual policy change before concluding that he feels differently. We've seen him do a 180 on so many other campaign promises since taking office, why should Russia be any different?

> dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine

US policy on this matter was set by president Obama and the congress at the time. The relevant before picture and after picture (in terms of US policy) have nothing to do with Trump unless he actually drives a policy change. There was a minority (including McCain, HRC, etc.) who harshly criticized Obama's inaction. This minority has become very vocal of late, and has attracted many HRC partisans to the chorus, but there is not really evidence that a majority of congress holds this view. Notably, the members of the GOP who are most vehement are the ones whose own opportunism calculus dictates that vocally calling out Trump on the issue suits their own personal objectives.

From a game theoretic perspective, I think the hawks may be right, though I personally hope we find a more peaceful, trade-driven equilibrium. I've worked with various Ukrainian and Russian software engineers before, and they are all nice, reasonable people who do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.

>I'm not defending Trump...it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career...

Sure, you're defending him, by normalizing it through false moral equivalence. You can't say Trump has done anything wrong without invoking HRC, GWB, or someone else. That also happens to be a well-known Russian propaganda technique.

>So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric

Again, it has already gone beyond rhetoric, which I've noted exhaustively, including the RNC platform change. And, ignoring what he says is not wise in any case, as it sets the stage for policy. Further, contrary to what you state, he has not done "a 180 on so many other campaign promises".

>This is not the point of my comment... It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump

These two statements contradict, and the latter points back to your previous post that attempted to conflate Trump's position on Russia with Obama's. In fact, they couldn't be more different. Start with the biggest: sanctions.

>do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.

More propaganda in lock-stop with Russian fear-mongering. As if the choices are a.) defer to and appease Russia or b.) nuclear holocaust. And again, in your view, Russia never has responsibility in any of it. Invade countries, attack democratic processes, etc. And, the onus is on the U.S. to simply try to find some "trade equilibrium".

You should consider being more open about what you really believe. If you think you're in the right, then there's really no need to dissemble and hide. You just lose credibility. Just make your case in the open and people can process it on the merits. As it is, you repeatedly contradict yourself and morph positions, and much of what you write is demonstrably false.

So, feel free to continue solo with your walls of words.

> My read of it

Here's some reading material that you missed:

https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE...

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be...

> One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.

Or that he wanted to delegitimize the Clinton presidency.

> It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.

Nonsense. Increased economic sanctions are more effective against Russia's failing petroeconomy.

The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia and especially did not implicate Putin. There may be other, secret evidence that does, but it was not revealed to the public for scrutiny.

I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia.

Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war").

The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment.

A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did).

It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.

> The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia

They absolutely did implicate Russia. Read them again.

The rest of your post is bloviating about a military escalation that exists only in your mind.

> Read them again.

I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work.

I think we can safely assume that the US and Russia conduct steady amounts of mischief toward each-other, and that it's largely out of the public view. Some of it likely includes hacking attempts, etc.

But the very documents you link say that while the groups in question were not previously linked to the Russian government, there is suddenly reason to believe they are (namely the release of the DNC emails).

So for some reason previous JARs had not felt it worthwhile to speculate about state actors being involved, suddenly this link to the Russian state became the most relevant aspect. Hmm.

I think it's quite plausible that Russia pays several groups of hackers a few million dollars a year to conduct mischief. For all we know the US pays similar (or even the same) groups to do mischief.

We're told that there is an arbitrary code execution vulnerability that was responsible for the DNC hack, but we're also told that a user fell victim to a phishing email. While both might be true, which of these pieces of evidence can we attribute to the DNC hack?

It was revealed previously that the server at the DNC was not patched and was likely vulnerable for many months. Any number of actors could have gained access to it, installed rootkits, etc.

With all the leaks and embarrassing revelations coming out about US intelligence agencies, I think it's best to remain highly skeptical of any information revealed that has a political impact.

A few months ago people were angry that James Comey handed the election to Donald Trump, now the same people are certain that the best explanation for the DNC email leaks is a Russian state-sponsored attack.

The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Sure, Russia probably has a constant mischief campaign (as does, quite likely, the US), but within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis.

Reading the actual emails reveals an organizational culture that was extremely technically inept and that did not take it security seriously at all.

To put this in perspective, any serious state actor would have owned a vulnerable server being used by a major US political figure within hours after the server became vulnerable, and no trail would have been left. US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.

How difficult is it to periodically scan the list of a few hundred IP addresses used by top officials for known vulnerabilities. This is by far the most plausible explanation for how a state actor would handle the situation.

If anything the FancyBear group and other similar groups are just hackers for hire who periodically sell some results to the Russian government.

I think it's important to consider that if you have the budget of a state actor you don't do many of the things that are used as evidence in this narrative.

> I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work.

You very clearly didn't read them before this when you said there was no evidence other than that Russia might want to meddle in the election, and from your post, it seems unlikely you read them "again" just now. The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups by multiple security firms long before the DNC attack even happened. The implants were dropped through spearphishing campaigns with forms hosted on known RIS infrastructure.

> within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis

The FBI had notified the DNC of the intrusion with attribution long before the emails were leaked to the public. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hac...

> US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.

HRC had nothing to do with the compromised DNC server, so US intelligence wouldn't have warned her and did not. Where are you getting this ridiculous assertion from?

> The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups

So you're arguing that if you were state sponsored intelligence agency and you were using a crude technique that could be easily detected, that you'd only target organizations that your state had obvious strategic interest in?

Your assertion fails a test of reasonableness for several reasons. The most obvious of which is that since there are thousands of Nigerians doing the same kind of phishing campaigns, so there would be no tactical reason not to include a large number of randomly generated email addresses or email addresses from other hacked lists.

One obvious example is the Stratfor dump. Who were Stratfor's subscribers? Largely members of government agencies, large institutions, etc. Any hacking group would have had access to all of the emails in the dump, as well as other publicly available caches of email addresses.

Also, if you were a state actor wishing to conduct a phishing campaign like the one we're discussing, why would you dispatch it from the Ukraine? Even the links you sent claim it's quite unusual for the sender address of a phishing email to be the same as the one registered to the domain, but this fact is not deemed worthy of consideration.

So we're now down to three main possibilities: Either the state actor in question is extremely amateurish and careless, or it wasn't a state actor, or it was a state actor intending to lay a misleading trail.

My point is simply that it's very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that it was definitely a state actor and definitely Russia.

The article you linked would perhaps be somewhat trustworthy if it were not the case that the NYT had a clear intent on helping HRC's candidacy and has been one of the chief supporters of propaganda about Russia. I consider the NYT to be America's own Pravda.

The article contains assertions that are not accompanied by data. We're told that one of the DNC's computers was "phoning home" to "Russia" but there is sadly no reason to believe this or any of the other information in the article.

I'd also add that due to the NYT's very poor adherence to journalistic best-practices and basic professionalism during the campaign, reading an article like that makes me doubt the truthfulness of the claims even more than I would have without reading it.

While there are a few good reporters left at the NYT, the paper has a set of propaganda goals that often take precedence over truthful reporting and real journalism. This is deeply saddening to me, as I would hope that our nation would have at least one reputable large news organization.

FWIW I'm horrified that Trump won the election, and did not expect him to, but I would also have been horrified (though less so) if HRC had won. We can do so much better.

> I would also have been horrified (though less so) if HRC had won.

It is clear from the rest of your comments that your perception of the world is divorced from reality, that no matter how many reports from the FBI and private security firms confirm the Russian link with none saying otherwise, you believe you know better. There was nothing horrifying about HRC.

I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here.

I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.

And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?

>But it all rests on trusting the agencies

No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.

Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?

> you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?

Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people.

We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it.

You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us.

> Via raw common sense alone,

The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome.

I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.

>You are advocating placing blind trust

Nope. I stated the opposite: that all of the evidence already pointed us in this direction. No blind trust required.

>The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply common sense

Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense. Sorry, I prefer that my fellow Americans leave our eyes and brains switched on. We really need them these days, what with the shills and propagandists running rampant.

>the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced

The landscape of facts to which many of us are referring don't require quotes and include the otherwise inexplicable words out of Trump's mouth, coupled with his actions, removal of key parts of the RNC platform in Russia's favor, secret connections with his aides and the subsequent lying and admissions, etc. We know enough as irrefutable fact without relying on our intelligence agencies. Odd that you suggest we ignore it all.

>I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle...our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions

This argument comes straight out of Trump's mouth and makes no sense. It's essentially an argument for encouraging any adversary who wishes to extract concessions from us to simply attack us.

And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?

I do not pay attention to Trump or anything he says. I think your perspective on these issues is unduly influenced by Trump's claims and your conviction that if Trump claims something it must be false.

> And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?

This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq and why it was necessary to overthrow Saddam.

> Odd that you suggest we ignore it all. > Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense

I think it depends on what you consider evidence. If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts on it, I suppose the evidence is convincing.

>I think your perspective on these issues is unduly influenced by Trump's claims

Nope. Just the facts.

>This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq

"Because, Iraq" is not a magical dismissal for everything the U.S. does forevermore. It's possible (and sensible) to disagree with the Iraq War and Russian attacks on our democracy. In fact, that's where most Americans stand.

>If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts

Yeah, that or the 400lb guy in his basement makes more sense than what the U.S. intelligence agencies concluded.

But, AGAIN, ignore the agencies and just look at Trump's counterintuitive, but consistent behavior.

> Trump's counterintuitive, but consistent behavior.

What behavior? I read a few more articles on this and unless Trump is very stupid this is NOT the way he'd strengthen Russia at the expense of the US.

If he wanted to do that he'd likely just do it behind the scenes, not appoint a cabinet full of people on the payroll of Russia :)

Any oversight of the NSA is entirely voluntary. Queries may well get flagged but then what? Does every flagged query get reviewed? We have to trust the NSA, who have clearly demonstrated that they are not to be trusted. Now in the probably very rare event that the NSA decides to tell on itself to the oversight committees, tell me just exactly what you think they are going to do about it. Nothing, that's what.

I think this is a misconception, but I totally do understand where it comes from. The OGC and IC IG genuinely do care a lot about these things but due to the classified nature of the NSA's work any disputes and arguments about all the nuances are occurring behind closed doors.

The specific big case which the public knows about would be the domestic telephony metadata collection. Nobody knows about the discussions related to this or any pushback, or how exactly this was deemed to be a legal practice, and so on. This looks very bad as it causes the assumption to be that there is no proper oversight rather than seeing this as a bad interpretation.

Instead of the learned helplessness and assumptions about NSA, it would probably be far better to have an aggressive push for declassified briefings regarding these kinds of decisions. After the Snowden leaks I recall ODNI declassified and published a good amount of documentation in order to demonstrate the IC"s side of the matter, so it is known that declassification reviews for very sensitive subjects can occur when they put ample resources into it. The IC is very sensitive regarding sources and methods, so that's why most declassified information usually comes from FOIAs and specific "IC On The Record" releases. If they would declassify and publicize information regarding these decisions, there can at least be more of a dialogue on the topic using concrete facts versus assumptions.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to make that kind of defense of the IC in 2017. It is also incredibly insulting to imply that nobody was aware of or upset about any of this before Snowden. What's clear to see is that when these concerns were being hashed out, the Tom Drakes and Bill Binneys lost. What won was so bad that we haven't even discovered the bounds of their malfeasance. The mistrust that the IC has rightly earned won't go away with such a trite dismissal. There is no proper oversight, not for any reasonable definition of the word. We wouldn't be here today if there had been.

> There is no proper oversight, not for any reasonable definition of the word.

Could you elaborate on what practices you precisely take issue with?

If it is regarding domestic telephony metadata collection, I am in agreement and I am glad that the USA Freedom Act restricted that. Otherwise, I don't really know how to answer you as you haven't stated any specific problem that you have.

Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.

> Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic.

This is an interesting point. Over the past few years I've come to think that the most responsible perspective to adopt as a citizen is that officials and government are all, to some extent, bad actors who deserve a good measure of scrutiny and accountability.

The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.

Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.

> The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability.

I agree. I don't intend to defend anything problematic. I just worry that it will be hard to demand actual changes if people are concerned about vague issues driven by a misunderstanding of how things work, versus actually being able to call up their representatives with specific changes and demands in mind.

> Frankly, the response by officials to the Snowden revelations was deeply embarrassing to our nation.

I think this was due to the amount of material he leaked. If it was only the metadata-related material or other material related to problematic practices, I would think there would be far more leniency. But because he had taken and leaked everything he could get his hands on, much of it unrelated to anything domestic, the disclosures were viewed very differently. I personally think it makes no sense to charge him with relation to the leaks regarding domestic metadata collection since it was already admitted that this was overreach, but it is hard to figure out why he would blindly copy and leak other sensitive unrelated material (Easy example: I do not understand how he justifies scraping the content of certain internal wiki pages and giving it to The Intercept, there are no injustices described there, just legitimate sensitive intelligence information).

> I would think there would be far more leniency.

I'm less concerned with Snowden's treatment than with the way that our leaders dealt with the revelation that crimes had been committed in the excessive collection of data.

In my opinion, at least a few senior intelligence officials should have faced prison time, several more should have stepped down, and we should have seen full details disclosed about the problematic programs and seen the technology infrastructure get dismantled.

But we saw nothing like this. President Obama pretended nothing had happened and things just continued on pretty much the way they had been.

The key point is that the surveillance programs Snowden revealed are illegal, criminal programs and there is zero accountability for those whose misdeeds and lies led to the programs.

While I have no doubt that the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are honest, law-abiding people, I am not comfortable with a massive surveillance system being built behind closed doors with no democratic oversight. The stakes are just too high.

I have a number of friends who work in government and I wonder whether they feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about the programs since for all we know there is a sentiment analysis being done on the emails, tweets, texts, and phone conversations of all government employees with security clearance.

From the standpoint of preventing crimes by leveraging surveillance and data mining, of course there would be a sentiment analysis system, and the threat level posed by dissenting sentiment would be easy to monitor so that measures could be taken to prevent undesirable occurrences from happening.

Can a democracy exist when there is a massive surveillance system that everyone realizes is lurking behind every web cam and ISP? I'm not sure it can.

We've seen a handful of generals and public officials get destroyed by "leaks" of data that were quite likely obtained via the surveillance infrastructure. This should probably terrify us, but there is very little scrutiny of the methods used, including parallel attribution, and most government claims are taken at face value.

There was only one illegal program in the leaks — the phone metadata collection program that the GP mentioned. At the time it was leaked, its legality was unknown, but the leaks contained arguments from the government's attorneys explaining why it was probably legal. Their arguments had merit and were supported by the District Court of Judge William Pauley, who agreed that Smith v. Maryland's ruling was precedent. Only after appeal was the program ruled illegal, but by that time, the government had already stated the program would be replaced.

> the government had already stated the program would be replaced.

Has the program been replaced? How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture?

What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist?

Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public?

> Has the program been replaced?

Yes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/...

> How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture?

There was a comment, singular, from a high-level official, singular, denying collection of data on US citizens en masse. There was never surveillance en masse, so any denying that would be completely kosher.

> What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate?

Most government programs are created without a public debate, just as most private sector advertising programs are created without a public debate. As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead.

> Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist?

We have no way to know for sure, but since no clearly illegal programs existed in the indiscriminate dump provided by Snowden, and since the one program that was questionably legal had plenty of legal documentation in the dumps, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any clearly illegal program exists.

> Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public?

The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security by anonymized ID, which then requires a court order to be deanonymized.

> As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead.

Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing.

> The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security

Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. It was only shut down because the metadata program came online and offered a more comprehensive version.

Both programs have the same goal, which is to find threats to national security. Both were created with good intentions in mind. The problem with both, in my opinion, is the potential for abuse.

> Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing.

As I explained, this happens everywhere, not just in government agencies. That is why no reasonable person would have expected a public discussion prior to implementation.

> Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term.

We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. He has at times ramblingly suggested that he wants all Muslims to be registered, not just some foreigners visiting the US as in NSEERS.

> We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS.

Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal".

Trump's decision to call for a Muslim registry was born out of the political appeal of saying something that is both commonplace and controversial. Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well. Yet when a guy like Trump talks about it he does it in a way that angers people and generates newspaper headlines.

> s I explained, this happens everywhere,

Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.

> Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal".

Did you forget that this metadata collection ended? Did you forget that when it was collected, the only way to query it was to find anonymized IDs of contacts to issue court orders to deanonymize? I explained both of these earlier in this very conversation. Or do you think that Trump doesn't understand these nuances and thinks he has the the ability to spy on anybody?

> Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well.

Did you forget that NSEERS isn't a Muslim registry but a registry of visiting foreigners from specific dominantly Muslim countries, as I just explained in my previous post, which is different from an actual Muslim registry that Trump has suggested he supports?

> Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.

Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere, so it's amazing to me that you would think public debate would be necessary before implementing those programs.

> Did you forget that this metadata collection ended?

I do not believe this to be the case. We have been reassured multiple times that our agencies are not eavesdropping, etc., yet revelations have continued to emerge that these reassurances have been lies.

> Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere,

The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world. It (and the first and second amendments) are even unique in the western tradition rooted in English common law. So yes, I know it happens almost everywhere. That does not mean it should happen here.

I'd also comment that there must be a bizarre, un-American cynicism among the people who write things like the "Patriot Act" and the sorts of legal briefs that allow agencies to burn the bill of rights at will. Who are the monsters who want to destroy the few things that could be considered unique cultural and humanitarian achievements of our nation? And why do you defend them!

> We have been reassured multiple times that our agencies are not eavesdropping, etc.

Did you forget that we have had no evidence that our agencies are eavesdropping despite having access to an indiscriminate drop of data from Snowden?

> The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world.

As is every single other American law. You have given no justification for why in-house counsel should treat the Fourth Amendment differently from any other Bill of Rights issue. If in-house counsel believes a program's legality can be justified, the program will proceed -- this happens regardless if counsel is retained by a government agency or a private entity.

> And why do you defend them!

I am not defending the authors of the Patriot Act. I am correcting your obscene misconceptions of what programs were actually in place. The programs you thought were in place would be clearly unconstitutional like the sections of the Patriot Act that were struck down in 2007, but the programs that were actually running were not even close to what you have somehow come to imagine.

USA Freedom act isn't reform, it's a post getting caught minor change of and extension of the Patriot act. Reporting is still voluntary for all practical purposes. Oversight of FISC matters is still the domain of the same FISC that did close to nothing to stop the rampant abuse, except maybe give cover.

My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.

As for your facts you've made some very loquatious attempts. I'm skeptical as to the actual number of facts contained therein.

I don't know if I would call it rampant abuse. It was one program which I also disagree with, and the USA Freedom Act rectified this (Or rather, it fixed the concerns that I had about it, you may disagree).

> My biggest issue is the mixing of the NSA's surveillance power with domestic law enforcement.

I fully agree. Serious changes are needed here in my opinion and I hope the pressure due to renewal this year will allow for some reform.

yes I am sure there is NO WAY you could possibly have it get you information on anyone inside the US. just everyone else on the planet.

On what basis can you state these things with such authority? (Apologies if there is something obvious that I'm overlooking.)

Also, do you mean that these are the stated rules, or that these are the practices? I don't mean that in a conspiratorial sense. In any institution, the actual practices vary from the rules, sometimes significantly.

What he's stated matches what was in Snowden's leaks. The big problem with Greenwald's reporting is that the leaked documents disagree with Snowden and Paul, but Greenwald believes Snowden and Paul instead of the leaks.

It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.

Citations needed.

Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...

https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-v...

And then he lied to the American people about the FREEDOM Act. Claimed it was some type of reform.

Both parties have expanded the powers of the agencies. That's no secret.

Trump is amusing. He'll say something absolutely obscene, then his surrogates will say that he meant something different and slightly less obscene. Then supporters will go to great lengths to translate his words into an extremely favorable reading that actually isn't obscene at all.

We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.

>We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.

Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.

I think a lot of people do, but it's best not to rate it too highly. It's a lot easier to communicate clearly and effectively when your propositions are simple, and it's a lot easier to have simple propositions when you're not constrained by the evidence.

That's pretty much the whole story of demagoguery and why it continues to work.

> demagoguery

Well, if President Trump actually does serve the common people, it will be a wondrous thing.

> A demagogue ... is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.

Where is he doing anything other than furthering his interests?

Doesn't look too promising so far.

It's too soon to say. If he does end up serving a constituency, it'll arguably be one that's been long underserved. But personally, rueful cynicism is about the best that I can manage.

The constituency he'll end up serving is billionaires like him.

By demagoguery I mean demagoguery — I mean highly charged oratory, persuasive whipping-up rhetoric (https://youtu.be/ZFD01r6ersw?t=40).

Yes, but isn't that a prerequisite for political success?

  A demagogue for the common people* !

  *only certain people qualify

>serve the common people

Nowadays we call that populism. And we don't like it one bit! /s

I think that contains some degree of inherent value, sure.

Being honest and informed are much more valuable and refreshing traits to me.

It would be refreshing if he actually backed up his words, rather than just saying what he thinks you want to hear. It's not refreshing when he flip-flops depending on who his audience is at the time.

I wouldn't say that he means what he says. I think he says what he believes, without using reality-checking or diplomacy filters, which is a distinctly different behavior.

It is kind of refreshing, because while I have a sneaking suspicion that most politicians are secretly despicable people behind their masks, Trump is a despicable person right out there in the open. I know exactly where I stand in relation to him.

It would be if he wasn't a demented narcissist. His inability to ignore even the smallest trifle that casts him in negative light shows the extent of his mental illness.

I'm still trying to figure out how he is unlike Kim Jong Un.

unityByFreedom says: " Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me"."

No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.

Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement.

That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.

Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in order to satisfy the electorate. But with those disclaimers, as someone who has done a lot of document editing in Photoshop for the past 15 years, I found this video beyond convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWmWO18GTc8

Regarding Trump's claim that Trump Tower(?) was tapped, I find it very suspicious that Obama's reaction was a lawyered non-denial-denial relayed by an intermediary. Whenever people are accused of crimes and they do anything other than simply deny it, you should be somewhat suspicious. When they use weasel words or clever phrasing, be suspicious. I predicted Theranos' issues something like 8 months in advance due to this; Elizabeth Holmes never simply said "these reports are wrong because our technology works" (because she knew she would be open to lawsuits after the fact if she said as much). Just my 2 cents; ofcourse nobody knows for sure at this point.

You watched a video that is over an hour long and you generally seem to have put a lot of thought into the veracity of Obama's birth certificate for someone who claims to "not particularly care" about it.

Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump himself offered zero evidence of this claim and is even trying to walk it back.

The short is that you seem to believe whatever fits your personal narrative. Worse, you try to convince others to blindly believe divisive, destructive, nonsensical conspiracy theories without a scintilla of proof.

Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge. One could just as easily say, "I think you're a rapist. Of course, I don't know for sure."

Unchecked disinformation wreaks havoc on democracy. This nonsense is literally destroying our country.

> Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge.

This needs to repeated more!

Thank you internet stranger, your words have lifted my spirits today.

> Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge.

It is that at times. At other times, it is simply something people say when they suspect something but do not know it for sure.

Agreed. I suppose you have to simply consider the context to help determine which it is. If it follows a load of other dissembling nonsense, then it's probably the former.

George Washington was born in Virginia colony.

Right. Doesn't that make him British? Asking honestly... How could he have been American if the USA didn't exist yet. Obviously he was North American, but his citizenship at birth would have been British, no?

When the area you were born or live in changes governments, does that make you an immigrant?

It's in the Constitution: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". - Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5

As you can see, this covers the corner case you've identified.

Interestingly, the term citizen wasn't defined until the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

> George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts.

No, he wasn't an immigrant of any sort. He was a native born citizen of one of the states that formed the United States, and one of the leaders of the movement by which they became the United States.

Immigrant is possibly the wrong word, but wouldn't he technically have been a British citizen prior to the founding of the USA?

Repeat after me:

It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.

> It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.

There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)

    Would there be any dispute if my wife gave birth while we were on vacation in France?  

    I suspect that those who really hold to that definition are primarily concerned about the amount of melanin in his skin.

Except multiple leaks have proven this isn't some crackpot conspiracy theory. Whether or not the NSA, CIA, or FBI were specifically targeting Trump, his communications, and ours, ARE intercepted and monitored.

Listen to yourself. What you're saying does not logically follow. That some people, generally, are monitored by the TLAs, does not in any way validate Trump's very specific claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by Obama. Dragnet surveillance of the populace and targeted wiretap of a political opponent are very very different. One does not imply the other, and you can not walk back Trump's claim to pretend he meant something else. Words have meaning.

Think about it. Your rebuttal is akin to someone asserting that Trump specifically e-mailed Russian political contacts (on no evidence), and me claiming validation of that assertion when it turns out that yes, an e-mail address in Russia was one of 50 million to receive spam mail for Trump's shitty steaks. But it would be ridiculous for me to claim such a walk-back – even though what I just wrote actually happened [1] – because words have meaning.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/th...

The current system is worse than being designed to be used without warrant - it's explicitly setup to subvert the warrant process. Remember, FISA court proceedings are secret, and at least as of 2013 (I'm getting this info from Wikipedia), a massive 12 out of 35,529 FISA warrent requests were rejected.

The rate of rejections does not actually tell you anything about the effectiveness of the court.

Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.

> Related fallacy: there is not a standard ratio of people who should fail school tests.

Fair enough, but then one could argue that law enforcement are under-utilizing the powers they ought to have since so many requests are sailing through without impediment.

If the agency submitting requests are denied often, the judge would look at future requests from that agency more closely and deny at an even higher rate. You don't go to the judge with garbage for probable cause.

More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions. https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-requests-for-a-search-wa...

> More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions

So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?

Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public, there is great pressure on the judge and law enforcement to act properly. No such check exists in the FISA system.

Think about the lax punishment of Brock Turner and all the attention it received. This is because the miscarriage of justice was public knowledge.

Behind closed doors people behave badly. There are numerous examples of this, including reproducible experiments.

> So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped?

No, you're arguing that FISA warrants are rubber-stamped, but if you believe that, you must also believe that search warrants are rubber-stamped, which is the "nonsensical conclusion" I alluded to earlier.

> Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public....

Search warrants and the justification for them are not guaranteed to be public and can be sealed like FISA warrants, and both can and have been unsealed following legal challenge. Therein lies part of your error. The second part of your error is that FISA warrants can only be used to search the records of non-citizen foreigners, who do not have fourth amendment rights, and people who have already been proven to be agents of a foreign power.

> Remember, FISA court proceedings are secret, and at least as of 2013 (I'm getting this info from Wikipedia), a massive 12 out of 35,529 FISA warrent requests were rejected.

Yeah, that's a much higher rejection rate since 2003 than in the 24 previous years the court existed, when zero were denied. So, if the rate of rejections is a valid metric for how good the court is, with fewer rejections being worse, the process got better during the "War on Terror".

Do you find anything odd about the timing of the release of this information, which so perfectly overlays with Trump's unverifiable charge and provides ammunition for reaching a conclusion such as yours?

I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know?

There is an over-emphasis on what's possible vs. what the actual evidence says. That is the path to a post fact world wherein literally any conspiracy theory can now thrive. At the end of this path lies the complete obliteration of democracy.

I think you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump. My intent is only to highlight that a surveillance system that is designed to circumvent accountability is ripe for abuse.

This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.

>you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump.

From this and your other comments, you undertake a lot of mental gymnastics to let Trump off the hook. And your assertions go well beyond decrying potential abuse by intelligence agencies.

>such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.

Not really. Or, more specifically, only when people willfully use it in a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt, and others promote that it is a legitimate basis for that doubt. The people behind the most recent Wikileaks dump seem to understand this, wouldn't you agree?

Thinking people still understand that implausible is not the same as actually happened, and that actual proof is required when a president charges a former president with breaking the law.

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants

However, there is an audit trail in the system. As an investigation will occur on this matter, I am sure that cleared representatives will have access to this for review.

> As an investigation will occur on this matter

What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.

I think it's unlikely we'll see any raw data. Chances are that if there was any investigation going on into anyone on Trump's team (which we know there was), then those individuals showing up at Trump Tower for a meeting creates a metadata correlation to Trump Tower. Hence Trump's claim of "wiretapping Trump Tower" would seemingly be trivially true if even the simplest metadata link between, say, Flynn and Trump Tower were followed or considered potentially relevant by any analyst.

> What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records.

I agree with regards to viewing the data. But that would imply it was a matter of asking NSA to check the audit trail. With a topic so politically charged, I would hope that they would instead get an independent committee with proper security clearances to get access to the data in their SCIF and be able to ask questions to fully understand each action taken and assure it is all above board. I do not have direct knowledge of how such an investigation would work, but my point is that retrieving the audit trail is probably an easy aspect of a longer process.

True. The sticky aspect of it is that what might technically constitute wiretapping may not reveal special intent to eavesdrop on Trump or his campaign.

But this is precisely what's problematic about the metadata program, it casts a very wide net which deprives many innocent bystanders of their rights.

I've not really been following it but isn't one of the main arguments that Obama would've had to have sign any FISA warrant?

> Obama would've had to have sign any FISA warrant?

No, the straw man argument is that we can tell whether Trump was wiretapped by the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.

The president does not sign FISA warrants, the entire purpose of FISA is to streamline (almost to automate) the issuance of warrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

My understanding is that "listening" to communication between Trump and a foreign national would not require a FISA warrant. I say "listening" because, I believe, all communications with foreign nationals are recorded but only some are actually listened to by actual people.

Why, in a thread about unacceptable reach of executive power, is the top comment a defense of the sitting president (the wielder of such power) and a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal?

Because there are three separate scenarios we could be in: the sitting president wants to get rid of this power, the sitting president wants to abuse this power, and the sitting president does not understand this power.

If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).

As a wise man once said, "Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country." "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name."

> If the office of the president is saying things like "microwaves that turn into cameras," I'm not confident in the president's ability to understand the problem well enough to solve it effectively (nor, and this is small comfort, to take advantage of it effectively).

imho this particular case seems like the incoherent ramblings of a nutcase, but bugs hidden in everyday devices are old-school espionage stuff (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) or countless others).

A microwave would be a pretty awesome target for a bug - it can live off the microwave's standby power, and transmit in the 2.4 GHz band when the microwave is operational. The high power usage of the magnetron (and the load-switching voltage spikes) would cover the increased energy demand, and using the 2.4 GHz band prevents it from being detected by bug sweepers (the noise from the microwave will drown out the sweeper).

> a thread about unacceptable reach of executive power

This is true no matter who is in charge.

> top comment a defense of the sitting president

It is not a defense, but if you perceive it that way you reveal your own bias. It is merely a point about the relevance of a FISA warrant when reasoning about the issue.

> the wielder of such power)

Of course, my caution about the irrelevance of FISA warrants applies equally to the sitting president and to past and future presidents.

> a canard about a mostly-unrelated political scandal

I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal. If we're talking about "wiretapping", Snowden revealed that there is a vast power of surveillance that can be wielded by a large number of people with little oversight.

While this does not lend credence to Trump's claims, it does reveal that those rebuking Trump for making the claims based on the lack of a FISA warrant are likely attempting to deceive/misdirect the public about how the apparatus actually works.

> I'm not really sure how to respond to your characterization of the Snowden revelations as a unrelated political scandal.

Which should have been your clue that you whiffed on the point.

"Obummer tapped my phones!" is the unrelated political scandal. If you don't want to be dinged for derailing the discussion, you could have jumped into a discussion about FISA/DoJ vs. NSA surveillance via any other technique. Instead you chose to go down this ridiculous "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.

> "See? Trump was right!" rathole. And here we are.

Not at all. I don't care whether Trump was right, but I do care whether we have a system where an audit can be done that can actually provide reassurance that inappropriate surveillance is not being done. Note that I am not arguing that surveillance of Trump (if it occurred) was even inappropriate, since there were widespread concerns about his ties with Russia, and the administration in office at the time had an obligation to provide due diligence.

There has been very little focus on the rule of law and limits to the surveillance state. Trump is not a privacy advocate, but nevertheless his remark made some of the relevant issues around unchecked surveillance timely.

For Trump to make such a claim, he would (presumably) need reasons. I would sincerely hope that his reasons are more than simply "I read it on my friends blog"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com