First off, I want to say @artician, thanks for such an insightful comment, and enoch as well. I've not been participating in this community much for the past few years because of being busy with figuring myself out and trying to figure out how I feel about the mess we're in. Interesting conversations like this were what drew me to the sift initially.

Ultimately, I've come to a similar conclusion as you. While, as JustSaying noted, we do tend to be tribal creatures, the nature of the interaction between ingroups and outgroups is a learned one (for the most part) just like violence as an acceptable outlet is a learned habit (for the most part; children who are abused and grow up surrounded by violence are more likely to perpetuate abuse, etc). Because people naturally learn to be more tolerant and empathetic as they grow to understand each other and see how much their similarities outweigh their differences, this tribal nature shifts in more interconnected societies to things like political parties, sports fanships, cliques, etc. as the increased understanding/empathy between us decrease the potential for dehumanization of the "other" and violence.

We are living in more peaceful times than ever before in most ways. We are learning to be more accepting of religion, sexuality, and other differences more than ever before in terms of the global average. We have a system that promotes dehumanization and exploitation, selfishness and secrecy rather than compassion and empathy, sharing and oppenness, but such a system need not always be. There are no easy answers, and none of us can do anything alone to change things, but the majority of us are tired of the wars and killing, throwing away the lives of our youth instead of seeing what new art and science and wonder they could bring to our world. Those who lust after power enough to exercise it over their fellow men the way it has been are the few and very sick who need some help and removal from temptation, like a "recovering" alcoholic at a Christmas party.

"Owing to secrecy and obfuscation, it is hard to know how much of the NSA’s relationship with the Valley is based on voluntary cooperation, how much is legal compulsion through FISA warrants and how much is a matter of the NSA surreptitiously breaking into technology companies’ systems."

Did you read about the latest massive bug in Apple's SSL implementation? It's a particularly stupid mistake that would have been found instantly if they had adhered to programming standards. It's also easily explained by a botched code-merger or a simple copy-paste misshap.

Yet when I looked into the details that some folks found out, I couldn't help but think that it's odd how this particular bug was introduced in late September of 2012.

Remember, Snowden's files showed us that Apple became part of PRISM in October of 2012.

So my paranoia-driven brain tries to work out the scenario:
- did the NSA know about it?
- did the NSA exploit it?
- did the NSA plant it through a mole?
- did Apple add it themselves, at the NSA's request?

Pre-Snowden, I'd have said somebody fucked up and that's the end of it. Nowadays however, Hanlon's razor doesn't fly anymore, so I wouldn't rule out malicious intent.

Which 'liberal anti-gmo stance' do you speak of? Many have been presented that could fall into those categories if not read with care.
Does 'pro-responsible science' count as 'liberal anti-gmo'? Does anti-experimentation on the public in secret count? If so, mea culpa.
I see them as different stances though. I'm not 'anti-gmo' as such, I'm anti-secrecy and anti-bad science and anti-false propaganda. If gmo's are made safe to use, labeled to aid in informed choice, non-transferable to other non-gmo crops, and are proven so by neutral, repeatable (and repeated) science, I'm fine with them. That has not happened yet.

You might be ahead of the curve on that one.

I agree that a bit (or a lot) of fear might force our representatives all over the world to realize that even the richest donor cannot provide you with a replacement for your head after it was chopped off by the mob. Hell, we might find out soon enough if the troika keeps choking the life out of Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Similarly, the damage being done by secrecy of all kinds, particularly to core elements of democracy (see: deep state), might very well outweigh potential damages caused by putting an end to it entirely.

But I'm not there yet. Iceland and, to some degree, Switzerland are showcases that shit can be turned on its head much quicker than anyone thought. Nationalising banks, jailing bankers, referendums about maximum wages and basic incomes... if the Swiss can openly discuss the "1:12" initiative, a disbandment -- or at least a complete restructuring -- of intelligence services is not as impossible as one might think.

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

Well, in that case, here is an MI5 whistleblower's very eloquent attempt to ruin your mood for the day. And here an artist makes secrecy visible, including rendition flights, spy satellites, the works -- very entertaining.

I am always impressed by Greenwald's intellect and presentation. I'm totally with him. Government secrecy is a cancer.

"When I worried on Twitter that we could not trust encryption now, technologist Lauren Weinstein responded with assurances that it would be difficult to hide 'backdoors' in commonly used PGP encryption – because it is open-source. Openness is the more powerful weapon." - Jeff Jarvis

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/nsa-surveillance-welcome-end-secrecy

It's so sad that this woman and her ilk are either completely lying about what this program does or they completely misunderstands what they're supporting. They now admit the NSA shares this (an d other) info with other agencies (while explicitly telling them to lie about where they got the info, if it ever comes out they have it in the first place), they also admit they keep all data including content of email and texts, and probably even phone calls indefinitely and do not require a warrant to use this information for investigation, and when they DO think they need one they go to FISA and get a rubber stamp one, never once being denied a warrant when they ask.
it came out recently that every email and text may be collected as the rules allow collection even if the 'data' they contain is exclusionary data, as in not what they're looking for (today).
The programs HAVE been abused. What needs to happen is an agent like Snowden needs to use his authority to collect the content of congress' and the white house's emails and texts and make them public in total, they have now fu*ked any claim of 'secrecy' or 'national security' because they know of this program and so they know any thing they write electronically is NOT secret and THEY just made it public by emailing it. Sadly, after Snowden's treatment, I doubt anyone else is going to be willing to give up their life and safety to force this issue.
I wish I could send Snowden $5 to thank him for reminding the public about these programs and publicly outing the lies they continue to spout while making the 'truth' a national secret that can't be disussed without committing 'treason'.
I won't be voting for a single incumbent.

Well, the main distinction really is that MLK and others in the Civil Rights movement broke laws in order to show the injustice of those very laws. Going to trial and living through the punishment was part of the demonstration of the absurdity of the laws themselves.

The only law that Snowden broke (IMO) was the unauthorized release of classified/secret information. He didn't break that law to show the absurdity of the US government's secrecy regime (though it is out of control), he did it to notify the US and the world citizenry of the extent of US surveillance of electronic communications. Getting punish for breaking the law does not serve his objective of informing and sparking debate, it only restricts his ability to continue to engage on these issues.

He reminds me of me, but less chicken-shit.

I also think he's doing the right thing: more transparency is always better - always.

It's the old adage flipped on its head; If the government has nothing to hide, it shouldn't care. I can even understand the need for secrecy with some things, but very very few things - too much stuff is put under a "national security" blanket of secrecy and that's wrong.

I would rather risk a terrorist attack than put on chains.

@VoodooV
god i love you.

i did post some articles which reflect the expansion of power in regards to civil liberties and constitutional law.

but im with @Yogi
just because they 'say" they dont use that power does not mean they wont use it.historically it is quite the contrary.
once power is given it is ALWAYS used in some capacity.

but i agree with your contention about hyperbole and sensationalist media.
i also agree that for things to change it is going to happen from the people,

but for that to happen we must be informed and the government has done everything in its power to make this dragnet secret.
and thats really my main beef with all this.

secrecy.

which even by your own argument is not necessary.
we use facebook,google etc etc.

maybe all this attention might give us some much needed checks,balances and most importantly...transparency.

@enoch @Fletch @Yogi

I've done a complete turn around on this issue for sure. After doing some reading, I believe this to be much ado about nothing. I know I'm taking an extremely unpopular position here, siding against the left, the right, the media and videosift, essentially siding up with Obama and David Simon. Taking an unpopular position has never stopped me before. /vanity

I believe wiretaps are an important tool for law enforcement/counter terrorism, but only if there are proper checks and balances in place to make sure that these searches are constitutionally 'reasonable' and not a means of abuse.

Contrary to media hysteria, Obama can't listen in on your phone calls or read your sexts without a court order. That warrant has been the go to check and balance for decades, I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient today.

BUT IT'S ALL DONE IN SECRECY. Yeah, that's kind of the point of a wiretap.

BUT WHAT IF THIS POWER IS ABUSED? Then we need to reassess checks, balances, oversight, etc...

My questiosn to you:

Do you all think that surveillance should be a legal tool in criminal investigations?

If yes, what changes do we make to current policy without rendering surveillance toothless?

I'm open to any arguments you want to pose or any reading material you want to share. Am I missing something here? Change my mind.

http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html

"Dear Google users—

You may be aware of press reports alleging that Internet companies have joined a secret U.S. government program called PRISM to give the National Security Agency direct access to our servers. As Google’s CEO and Chief Legal Officer, we wanted you to have the facts.

First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish.

Posted by Larry Page, CEO and David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer"

"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!