Allowing the United States government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest.Admitted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden • In an interview with The Washington Post, the other publication he worked with when leaking information. (He previously spoke to The Guardian.) Snowden says he has no plans to hide from the federal government, and will remain in Hong Kong for the time being. He suggests that, by arresting him, the federal government will only prove his point on the leaks issue. “I’m not going to hide,” he told the newspaper.
Twitter account of the day: Someone started a Twitter account that simply retweets people who claim, in the wake of the NSA news of the past week that they have “nothing to hide,” so they therefore aren’t concerned with people looking over their shoulder. The background image on the Twitter account, BTW? A picture of sheep. (via Hacker News)
Yes, more from The Guaridan’s Glenn Greenwald:
Revealed: The NSA’s powerful tool for cataloguing global surveillance data, including figures on US collection. Boundless Informant, a mission outlined in four slides and read the NSA’s frequently asked questions documentThe leaks continue. The United States’ global war also has gone cyber, as revealed in The Guardian’s latest piece on the NSA’s program called Boundless Informant. It categorizes “the voluminous amount” of online and telephone information they receive from each country in the world.
Incremental isn’t the word for these stories. More like flood.
Any one of those stories would be enough to knock an Administration back on its heels. All three — and with the IRS and AP stories coming in rapid succession over the past 96 hours — threaten to permanently derail Obama’s plans to fortify his presidential legacy in the first 18 months of his second term.
The problems are both practical and symbolic. They have both short term and long term political consequences. And almost none of it portends well for President Obama and his Administration.
Another point here worth considering: “Remember that President Obama was elected in 2008 in no small part because of his pledge to be the anti-George W. Bush. That is, prizing competence over all in governance and putting a premium on transparency. And both of those pillars are undermined by developments in the past four days.”
After voting down reform three reform amendments on Thursday, the Senate continued debate on the spy bill on Friday morning. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) offered an amendment meant to force the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency to reveal how frequently they have collected Americans’ communications as part of their efforts to amass intelligence on foreign targets. Even an estimate would suffice, Wyden has argued — but the spy agencies have rebuffed his efforts to get a general number, claiming it is not possible.
“This is the last oportunity for the next five years for the Congress to exercise a modest measure of real oversight over this intelligence surveillance law,” said Wyden, referring to the 2017 expiration date in the new law. “It is not real oversight when the United States Congress cannot get a yes or no answer to the question of whether an estimate currently exists as to whether law abiding Americans have had their phone calls and emails swept up under the FISA law.”
Wyden and other civil liberties advocates are worried that the spy agencies might be able to use intelligence gathering capabilities ostensibly targeted at foreigners — a legal practice under the law — to search their databases for Americans’ emails and phone calls without a warrant.
The FISA Amendments Act was first approved during former President George W. Bush’s time in office, though its passage has been relatively uncontroversial in comparison to the initial vote in 2008. It is worth noting that then-candidate Barack Obama vowed to block such programs, while on the campaign trail in 2008, before switching to a push for simply increasing oversight/accountability of such programs.
So the week of The Daily’s closing, they break a story revealing that city buses across the country are adding audio-recording mechanisms to eavesdrop on conversations. What terrible timing for a scoop. :/
» Wait a sec … the FBI had them? Well, funny story about that. Back in March, the group says they gained access to a computer owned by an FBI official. Just by chance, they found a file on the agent’s desktop titled “NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv” — a long list of 12 million UDID identifiers for iOS devices, along with a number of other pieces of personal info. AntiSec released just 1 million of the UDID numbers (which you can analyze here to see if you were nailed), but it’s worth keeping in mind that the odds may not be super-high of getting hit. There are 410 million iOS devices on the market, as of July. The problem for many is that the FBI reportedly had this info in the first place. What did they need it for, and why was it sitting on some dude’s desktop?
UPDATE: The FBI says that there is “no evidence” they had a file like the one described above.
Follow ShortFormBlog • Find us on Twitter & Facebook
In a Louisiana public school, female students who are suspected of being pregnant are told that they must take a pregnancy test. Under school policy, those who are pregnant or refuse to take the test are kicked out and forced to undergo home schooling.
Welcome to Delhi Charter School, in Delhi, Louisiana, a school of 600 students that does not believe its female students have a right to education free from discrimination. According to its Student Pregnancy Policy, the school has a right to not only force testing upon girls, but to send them to a physician of the school administration’s choice. A positive test result, or failure to take the test at all, means administrators can forbid a girl from taking classes and force her to pursue a course of home study if she wishes to continue her education with the school.
Charter school or not, this seems like a pretty open violation of what should be an obvious example of a person’s right to privacy.