Statement on planned Fourth of July demonstrations
nsa.gov
nsa.gov
Come on: is it possible that anyone has felt the need to write this seriously on the corporate web page of the NSA?
AMAZING.
I hope (but I do not know, they do not say) the NSA also does not object to free speech, to private property, to freedom of press, to freedom of economic initiative, to freedom of religion...
EDIT: Come to think of it, it is possible that they had internal conversations like what are we going to do with these people?. And then the chiefs said: "hey, we do not object to these demonstrations!".
Scary...
Actually, it's pretty funny. What's the other option (besides not even acknowledging the demonstrations, which is the most sensical, I think)? Saying, "We strongly object to protests"? I would love to see them say something like that. It's almost like they think we care what they think of us, or maybe they are so delusional that they think they have the authority to call off a protest.
Or maybe they're getting at "We don't mind if you protest; while you do that, we'll carry on as usual. Your efforts are futile." That's not so funny.
A few attempts at drafting a superior response led me to realize that, in the present situation, there's almost nothing NSA can say. If those in power were to admit that past actions were wrong and move forward to reduce the scope of surveillance, their opponents would crucify, imprison, and sue them.
For us to move forward, a little forgiveness would go a long way. We have to make change possible.
After all, NSA is doing exactly what the electorate has asked for: moved to prevent small groups and individuals domestic and abroad from taking actions that hurt and kill innocent civilians. Sweeping surveillance is a powerful tool to achieve that end. It's also a long-term structural risk for our society. We have to propose tools with similar performance, or get society to accept a small risk of attack.
When someone brings the first independently-developed biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to bear in a coordinated attack, alternative defensive solutions and a civil libertarian populace can provide bulwarks to resist the temptation of always monitoring everyone. If surveillance is the only option, it will be used.
[0] First Amendment excerpt: "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ..."
I would recommend turning off your phone before heading to a protest. Well before, maybe leave it at home even, as turning off your phone nearby to a protest may be just as noticeable as having your phone there.
I think you missed the key point of the verb "object": Whether they object or not is immaterial to whether they are going to mark the protesters for additional NSA scrutiny of phone calls or email.
"You're a public servant, aren't you? How about you fetch me a glass of water." -- Bill Hicks
"We shall test your American citizenship by tossing a 1% loaded coin. If it shows tails, you are American, otherwise you are a foreigner and can be lawfully, legally, constitutionally, military and otherwise politically surveilled."
It would be good if they clarified that as well.
What limits ought we to establish on our government(s) with regard to the rights of citizens of other nations?
I'm not an expert, but Constitutional Law 101 is that the Constitution generally has territorial scope. It reaches citizens, whether they are on U.S. soil or off U.S. soil, and non-citizens who are on U.S. soil. It makes intuitive sense: non-citizens in say Afghanistan don't have any protections under the Constitution, because the Constitution is an expression of U.S. law and U.S. law has no force in Afghanistan other than to U.S. citizens who are bound to it by virtue of their citizenship.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_sec...
Your question is mis-phrased. It should be stated as, "What process is due to someone who is accused of spending a decade waging war against the US?"
It appears to be to be completely nonsensical to use the gravity of the accusations against a person to decide what kind of trial (or not) they should receive. The whole point of the trial is to find out whether the accusations are, in fact, true.
See
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html
for free, downloadable resources in a variety of languages about what you can do to support the worldwide movement for transitions from dictatorship to democracy. Don't be afraid to do your part to make the world a better place.
From an organization that spies on the world, that sounds sinister. As in "if we did object, we could do something about your 'lawful' protest."
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
<sarcasm> After all, they have nothing to hide, right? </sarcasm>
I would like of course for the NSA to change some of its practices... but the amount of hate it is getting on HN is ridiculous.
And, given the fact that many feel that the NSA, in particular, has been trampling those rights, their statement comes off as particularly egregious. In total, some may interpret this as the NSA claiming itself the arbiter of our rights: what it can do to us, and what we can do in response.
If baseball isn't interstate commerce, but growing your own wheat is for your own consumption, you know the whole state is rotten to the core. There is no objectivity it's just do whatever you want and if you're powerful justify it later.
Even if the have a problem with it I'm sure they'll carve out a minor exception, and no one will face any consequences...
It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
I hope this is a sign that at least some people in the NSA recognize that what happened was an egregious breach of the spirit of our constitution, and the principle of government by public consent. It would be nice if it meant that some of NSA's members welcome, for their organization, public accountability, clear limits on power afforded to them, and recourse for pressure from other parts of the government to violate these things.
Regardless of whether this is just wistful thinking or not, we should continue to bring awareness to this issue, and take action.
I hope the form of this action will be public awareness, peaceful protests, crowd-funding representatives, and holding those elected representatives legally accountable for their campaign promises (because I do not see how we can have a representative democracy if the words of the representatives before they are elected are so divorced from their actions after).
I hope the result will be legal safeguards and public oversight to make sure that no federal agency can violate the constitution, and act against public consent, no mater how secret their mission.
(edited to include the bit about public awareness)
But the truth is, it does those activities because the White House says it should, and Congress is ok with it. The NSA will never not obey politicians.
You want change, write to your Congressional representatives. Write to the major party Committees, and tell them that you will only support and donate to candidates that explicitly seek to change the surveillance of Americans. Find your local party headquarters and your convention delegates, and have respect for privacy added to the party platform.
Protesting the NSA is good because it organizes people, but then they need to be targeted where they will have an effect. But any real change will come from the political process. The NSA doesn't object. The NSA also isn't going to change anything because of the protests.
But we will be monitoring those that organise and participate, and attach nice little red flags next to their names.
"NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock, to protect the nation and its people."
I disagree with only one word of the above sentence.
If "our rulers" were not going to allow protest, or to restrict the time place and manner, the vehicle for those restrictions wouldn't likely be the NSA anyway, so a statement that the NSA doesn't object is somewhat tangential.
Especially when it gives us an opportunity to build a geo-associational database of potential troublemakers cross-referenced with surveillance cam data, social media breadcrumbs and other applicable metadata sources.
You know, for the day when things get serious.
That's right, remind us in every public statement of you're constantly 365/7/24 surveillance of our face, speech, writings, and body.