I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

I know in some very high security buildings. If you get close to a window. you can hear music or sound playing through the glass to stop eavesdropping. I wonder if you could use this technique to circumvent that. If so. Oh shit....

Yeah you don't get to ignore a trial simply because you don't think it will be fair. Every criminal ever would be justified in fleeing the law in such a case.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

We don't abide fleeing the law in any other situation, How come this is different?

We don't live in a country where we pick and choose the laws we want to follow.

Besides, turning himself in is win win. Snowden is virtually guaranteed that he will only die of old age because if anything happens to him, the US will be blamed.

His case is stronger if he turns himself in and argues his case. Fleeing hurts him.

Also, I hate to break it to you. Snowden's fleeing didn't create the public outcry you expected. The jury is in on this. Thanks to GPS and smartphones and other apps that use personal information. The public really doesn't have a lot of problem with being eavesdropped on. Most people already knew it was happening Congratulations, you created numerous internet memes but no actual change.

Attitudes on privacy are changing. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

"Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin with news that the National Security Agency has obtained access to the central servers of nine major Internet companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo! and Facebook. The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed the top secret program on Thursday, codenamed PRISM, after they obtained several slides from a 41-page training presentation for senior intelligence analysts. It explains how PRISM allows them to access emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, documents and connection logs that allow them to track a person or trace their connections to others. One slide lists the companies by name and the date when each provider began participating over the past six years. But an Apple spokesperson said it had "never heard" of PRISM and added, quote, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order," they said. Other companies had similar responses.

Well, for more, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, columnist, attorney, and blogger for The Guardian, where he broke his story in—that was headlined "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal." This comes after he revealed Wednesday in another exclusive story that the "NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers." According to a new report in The Wall Street Journal, the scope of the NSA phone monitoring includes customers of all three major phone networks—Verizon, AT&T and Sprint—as well as records from Internet service providers and purchase information from credit card providers. Glenn Greenwald is also author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. He’s joining us now via Democracy—video stream.

Glenn, welcome back to Democracy Now! Lay out this latest exclusive that you have just reported in The Guardian.

GLENN GREENWALD: There are top-secret NSA documents that very excitingly describe—excitedly describe, boast about even, how they have created this new program called the PRISM program that actually has been in existence since 2007, that enables them direct access into the servers of all of the major Internet companies which people around the world, hundreds of millions, use to communicate with one another. You mentioned all of those—all those names. And what makes it so extraordinary is that in 2008 the Congress enacted a new law that essentially said that except for conversations involving American citizens talking to one another on U.S. soil, the NSA no longer needs a warrant to grab, eavesdrop on, intercept whatever communications they want. And at the time, when those of us who said that the NSA would be able to obtain whatever they want and abuse that power, the argument was made, "Oh, no, don’t worry. There’s a great check on this. They have to go to the phone companies and go to the Internet companies and ask for whatever it is they want. And that will be a check." And what this program allows is for them, either because the companies have given over access to their servers, as the NSA claims, or apparently the NSA has simply seized it, as the companies now claim—the NSA is able to go in—anyone at a monitor in an NSA facility can go in at any time and either read messages that are stored in Facebook or in real time surveil conversations and chats that take place on Skype and Gmail and all other forms of communication. It’s an incredibly invasive system of surveillance worldwide that has zero checks of any kind.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, there is a chart prepared by the NSA in the top-secret document you obtained that shows the breadth of the data it’s able to obtain—email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, Skype chats, file transfers, social networking details. Talk about what this chart reveals.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think the crucial thing to realize is that hundreds of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions—in fact, billions of people around the world essentially rely on the Internet exclusively to communicate with one another. Very few people use landline phones for much of anything. So when you talk about things like online chats and social media messages and emails, what you’re really talking about is the full extent of human communication. And what the objective of the National Security Agency is, as the stories that we’ve revealed thus far demonstrate and as the stories we’re about to reveal into the future will continue to demonstrate—the objective of the NSA and the U.S. government is nothing less than destroying all remnants of privacy. They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another, things that we say to one another, things we do with one another, places we go, the behavior in which we engage, that they know about it, that they can watch it, and they can store it, and they can access it at any time. And that’s what this program is about. And they’re very explicit about the fact that since most communications are now coming through these Internet companies, it is vital, in their eyes, for them to have full and unfettered access to it. And they do.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, as you reported, the PRISM program—not to be confused with prison, the PRISM program—is run with the assistance of the companies that participate, including Facebook and Apple, but all of those who responded to a Guardian request for comment denied knowledge of any of the program. This is what Google said, quote: "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege [that] we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, first of all, after our story was published, and The Washington Post published more or less simultaneously a similar story, several news outlets, including NBC News, confirmed with government officials that they in fact have exactly the access to the data that we describe. The director of national intelligence confirmed to The New York Times, by name, that the program we identify and the capabilities that we described actually exist. So, you have a situation where somebody seems to be lying. The NSA claims that these companies voluntarily allow them the access; the companies say that they never did.

This is exactly the kind of debate that we ought to have out in the open. What exactly is the government doing in how it spies on us and how it reads our emails and how it intercepts our chats? Let’s have that discussion out in the open. To the extent that these companies and the NSA have a conflict and can’t get their story straight, let them have that conflict resolved in front of us. And then we, as citizens, instead of having this massive surveillance apparatus built completely secretly and in the dark without us knowing anything that’s going on, we can then be informed about what kinds of surveillance the government is engaged in and have a reasoned debate about whether that’s the kind of world in which we want to live.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, on Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein told reporters in the Senate gallery that the government’s top-secret court order to obtain phone records on millions of Americans is, quote, "lawful."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business record section of the PATRIOT Act, therefore it is lawful.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Dianne Feinstein. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, the fact that something is lawful doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous or tyrannical or wrong. You can enact laws that endorse tyrannical behavior. And there’s no question, if you look at what the government has done, from the PATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act, that’s exactly what the war on terror has been about.

But I would just defer to two senators who are her colleagues, who are named Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. They have—are good Democrats. They have spent two years now running around trying to get people to listen to them as they’ve been saying, "Look, what the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so radical and so distorted and warped that Americans will be stunned to learn" — that’s their words — "what is being done in the name of these legal theories, these secret legal theories, in terms of the powers the Obama administration has claimed for itself in how it can spy on Americans."

When the PATRIOT Act was enacted—and you can go back and look at the debates, as I’ve done this week—nobody thought, even opponents of the PATRIOT Act, that it would ever be used to enable the government to gather up everybody’s telephone records and communication records without regard to whether they’ve done anything wrong. The idea of the PATRIOT Act was that when the government suspects somebody of being involved in terrorism or serious crimes, the standard of proof is lowered for them to be able to get these documents. But the idea that the PATRIOT Act enables bulk collection, mass collection of the records of hundreds of millions of Americans, so that the government can store that and know what it is that we’re doing at all times, even when there’s no reason to believe that we’ve done anything wrong, that is ludicrous, and Democratic senators are the ones saying that it has nothing to do with that law.

AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Glenn, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he stood by what he told Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in March, when he said that the National Security Agency does "not wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans. Let’s go to that exchange.

SEN. RON WYDEN: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

JAMES CLAPPER: No, sir.

SEN. RON WYDEN: It does not?

JAMES CLAPPER: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the questioning of the head of the national intelligence, James Clapper, by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: OK. So, we know that to be a lie, not a misleading statement, not something that was sort of parsed in a way that really was a little bit deceitful, but an outright lie. They collect—they collect data and records about the communications activities and other behavioral activities of millions of Americans all the time. That’s what that program is that we exposed on Wednesday. They go to the FISA court every three months, and they get an order compelling telephone companies to turn over the records, that he just denied they collect, with regard to the conversations of every single American who uses these companies to communicate with one another. The same is true for what they’re doing on the Internet with the PRISM program. The same is true for what the NSA does in all sorts of ways.

We are going to do a story, coming up very shortly, about the scope of the NSA’s spying activities domestically, and I think it’s going to shock a lot of people, because the NSA likes to portray itself as interested only in foreign intelligence gathering and only in targeting people who they believe are guilty of terrorism, and yet the opposite is true. It is a massive surveillance state of exactly the kind that the Church Committee warned was being constructed 35 years ago. And we intend to make all those facts available so people can see just how vast it is and how false those kind of statements are.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein. Speaking on MSNBC, she said the leak should be investigated and that the U.S. has a, quote, "culture of leaks."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: There is nothing new in this program. The fact of the matter is that this was a routine three-month approval, under seal, that was leaked.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Should it be—should the leak be investigated?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I think so. I mean, I think we have become a culture of leaks now.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Dianne Feinstein, being questioned by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Glenn Greenwald, your final response to this? And sum up your findings. They’re talking about you, Glenn.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think Dianne Feinstein may be the most Orwellian political official in Washington. It is hard to imagine having a government more secretive than the United States. Virtually everything that government does, of any significance, is conducted behind an extreme wall of secrecy. The very few leaks that we’ve had over the last decade are basically the only ways that we’ve had to learn what our government is doing.

But look, what she’s doing is simply channeling the way that Washington likes to threaten the people over whom they exercise power, which is, if you expose what it is that we’re doing, if you inform your fellow citizens about all the things that we’re doing in the dark, we will destroy you. This is what their spate of prosecutions of whistleblowers have been about. It’s what trying to threaten journalists, to criminalize what they do, is about. It’s to create a climate of fear so that nobody will bring accountability to them.

It’s not going to work. I think it’s starting to backfire, because it shows their true character and exactly why they can’t be trusted to operate with power in secret. And we’re certainly not going to be deterred by it in any way. The people who are going to be investigated are not the people reporting on this, but are people like Dianne Feinstein and her friends in the National Security Agency, who need investigation and transparency for all the things that they’ve been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we want to thank you for being with us. Is this threat of you being investigated going to deter you in any way, as you continue to do these exclusives, these exposés?

GLENN GREENWALD: No, it’s actually going to embolden me to pursue these stories even more aggressively.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, I want to thank you for being with us, columnist and blogger for The Guardian newspaper. We’ll link to your exposés on our website, "NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal", as well as "NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily"." - Democracy Now!

Will it be fast? Will we be eavesdropped?

Anybody else feel like they were eavesdropping on a couple of loud girls in a bar? "I was like," and "he was like," and "he goes," and "I go." Jeez, excrutiating...

>> ^Gallowflak:

You can skip to 0:45 for the titular event.


The conversation set up works though. It's not bad dialogue -- discussing the straight away then remarking on the turn signal. Maybe I just take pleasure in eavesdropping.

@NordlichReiter, I believe in this particular state (and many others) it's a violation of some "eavesdropping" law which makes it a felony to tape someone without their consent. It's ridiculous, but that's statism for ya. Taking away your rights one utopia-engineering step at a time.

The yank dropped the n-bomb! I though you northern folk weren't supposed to be no racists or anything up thar?

I was born, raised and have lived in the South my whole life. I speak proper (American) English, and I do have an accent. I don't hear it in myself when I speak, but when I hear my voice on a recording, I'm thinking, "who's that redneck talking?"

This also reminds me of a time I went out with some friends. We were waiting at a restaurant, it was cold or raining or something, so everyone was packed inside waiting for their table. We were just talking to each other, and some out of town couple next to us must have been eavesdropping because the woman leaned over her husband/boyfriend/whatever and said "did you hear that, they said y'all."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I heard that interview with Pollack- and was thinking of checking his podcast out too - as the interview was funny. The only thing that put me off is that he literally used "literally" to mean figuratively about 7 times in the interview- I'm not sure I could take that. >> ^lucky760:

I'm right there with you. I enjoy the things they discuss on Nerdist (e.g., the conversation with Drew Carey), but it feels sort of impotent because it's delivered like you're just eavesdropping on a conversation rather than being presented a production. I'm really surprised it's #6 among all podcasts and #1 in the comedy category above Ricky Gervais and Adam Carolla, but he does have a bit of a built-in podcast-centric geek audience.
ACP is always my first podcast of the day. The Bob Zmuda interview was great, but was cut too short due to the double booking.
Have you listened to Kevin Pollak's Chat Show? I discovered it thanks to his interview on Carolla. He has some really quality stuff. I also listen to the Parent Experiment, Frosty Heidi and Frank, After Hours with Heidi and Frank, the Pretty Good Podcast, and Loveline.
I haven't heard of the Marketplace of Ideas, but I'll give them a go.

I'm right there with you. I enjoy the things they discuss on Nerdist (e.g., the conversation with Drew Carey), but it feels sort of impotent because it's delivered like you're just eavesdropping on a conversation rather than being presented a production. I'm really surprised it's #6 among all podcasts and #1 in the comedy category above Ricky Gervais and Adam Carolla, but he does have a bit of a built-in podcast-centric geek audience.

ACP is always my first podcast of the day. The Bob Zmuda interview was great, but was cut too short due to the double booking.

Have you listened to Kevin Pollak's Chat Show? I discovered it thanks to his interview on Carolla. He has some really quality stuff. I also listen to the Parent Experiment, Frosty Heidi and Frank, After Hours with Heidi and Frank, the Pretty Good Podcast, and Loveline.

I haven't heard of the Marketplace of Ideas, but I'll give them a go.

I have a hard time thinking of any reasonably usable knock that wouldn't be easy to eavesdrop on.

Nokia has sold eavesdropping equipment to Iran's government which is used to oppress its citizens. Iranian have repeatedly asked Nokia to share with them details of the technology, so that they can avoid or bypass the eavesdropping. But Nokia has refused to share life saving information, and is continueing its service contract with the Iranian government!

This technology has been used to threaten, imprison, rape and even result in death of people. Still Nokia is NOT sharing the detail.

For example with Siemens, we know they have sold Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to Iranian government, in which case SSL would allow safe surfing. But same level of information is not publicized by Nokia, I was very shocked ans saddened.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Modern liberalism seems to be trouncing real individuality at every turn: no longer are you allowed to choose what to drive, what to eat, whether to buy health care, whether to use tobacco, whether to own a gun, what you're allowed to say in public, whether you may express religious thought in public, what you can do with your own land.

All of those things are still permitted, and will stay that way, if the actual (as opposed to fictional) "modern" liberals have anything to say about it.

However, in the wake of a series of conservative administrations, we seem to have lost the ability to marry who we choose, take the drugs we want to take, and the ability to practice a non-Christian religion without persecution.

I also seem to have lost the ability to sue telephone companies who eavesdrop on my conversations without warrants, my right to habeas corpus, and the protections of the Geneva conventions. Again, thanks to the "modern" conservatives.

I have never, ever seen you preach tolerance for a viewpoint other than your own myopic view of the world. We tolerate you, because we pride ourselves on tolerance of people who are different from ourselves, but your hyopcritical, sanctimonious horseshit makes it a little more difficult than it really needs to be.