So much for the transparency we were promised.
Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after all
Are you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?
If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?
Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paypal seems a bit far fetched, but may be I'm not getting something.I guess what you're not getting is that just because I link something doesn't mean I think it's the same thing. Sometimes, I am just flipping through the internet and I find articles and I think, "Ooh!, I wonder if anyone on Paizo's seen this?"
So, we're talking about the AP scandal and Wikileaks obviously comes up, and I'm flipping through the internet and I find an article on the Paypal 14 and I think to myself, "Hmmm, I remember that, I wonder if anyone else on Paizo's seen that?" and I link it.
No conspiracy needed.
Btw, I have no opinion on what the Paypal 14 did or are alleged to have done because I don't understand what they did or are alleged to have done. I'll let the IT nerds duke that one out.
So you're just linking nonsense? Exactly what I'd expect from a goblin! *sniff*
Personally I fail to see how a legal investigation of journalists regarding leaks of classified information (that had the GoP leadership squealing like stuck pigs that the administration was being soft) is lack of transparency.
The AP subpoena was maybe overly broad, but it was perfectly legal and proper. So was the subpoena na for the Fox journalist's (and I use that word loosely) phone records and examining whom he visited at a government office.
Yes the First Amendment enjoins Congress (and by extension the states and by custom the Executive and Judicial branches) from infringing the freedom of the press. That does not make the press exempt from the law or investigation.
I'm no legal expert, but, from the New Yorker blog:
"On Thursday, President Obama called on Congress to revive a federal shield law that would protect reporters from the sort of thing the Justice Department has done to the A.P. This was ironic on two counts. There was the notion of the President asking that Congress tie the Administration’s hands, but all right, we all need rules, and late in the game is better than never. But then there was the fact that rules already in place should have prevented the intrusion on the A.P. As Lynn Oberlander, The New Yorker’s general counsel, pointed out in a post this week, the Justice Department’s own guidelines call for the government to inform news organizations when it issues such subpoenas (it was the phone companies that received the actual request in this case), allowing journalists the chance to contest them in court. Oberlander notes that the courts are generally on the government’s side, so not going to them is more of a point of principle than practicality. The guidelines also call on the government to focus its investigations as narrowly as possible. Neither of those conditions was satisfied in the probe of the A.P."
And since my last tangenitally-related link was so popular, here's another one that has nothing to do with Obama:
Why was a Sunday Times report on US government ties to al-Qaeda chief spiked?
|
So much for the transparency we were promised.
Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after allAre you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?
If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?
Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
|
Btw, I have no opinion on what the Paypal 14 did or are alleged to have done because I don't understand what they did or are alleged to have done. I'll let the IT nerds duke that one out.
They were part of a denial of service attack which was launched against PayPal because they stopped people from sending money to Assange/Wikileaks.
Basically overload the PayPal traffic so it crashes.
Problem with that that though - is PayPal is used to conduct business by everyday people - mostly people trying to make it on their own outside of the usual "work for a corporation" structure. People who buy and sell on eBay, conduct their own at home business. So these protesters/hackers really shot themselves in the foot when it comes to garnering sympathy from everyday common people.
They launched an attack against a service that was peripheral to the main case. Because PayPal (which I hate) didn't allow donations to a organization that was potentially involved in a crime, they got attacked.
The PayPal 14 should do some time; I do think it's a bit of an overreach on some of the sentences they try to hand out when it comes to protecting business though. Some violent offenders get hit with less potential time. A year (6 months in reality) plus a few years suspended would be reasonable over 15 years imo.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernmentSo much for the transparency we were promised.
Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after allAre you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?
If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?
Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?
Are you under the impression that the Transparency and Open Government directive you linked to promises us that leaks of information pertaining to sensitive matters of national security would not be prosecuted?
I genuinely want to know if you thought that would be the case. Nowhere in that link does the President promise anything of the sort, so if you got the impression that "open government" essentially meant, "We're just gonna declassify everything," I want to know where you got that impression from. Did you really think that's what this meant?
You know what I think? I think you don't care. I think you just picked a really lazy attack on the President's credibility because you can't find a better one. You thought to yourself, "Ooh, here's some ammo!" and went for it, even though you knew your criticism didn't have any basis in reality, because you don't give half a damn about the truth.
I, of course, don't believe a word Obama says, but this:
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
does seem to indicate that the DOJ would abide by their own (alleged) guidelines when seizing journalists' phone records and inform the news agency rather than just doing it on the dl.
EDIT: Makes me wonder, though, what ever happened to the guy who leaked the Obama Secret Kill List story to the New York Times; or the guy who leaked the DOJ White Paper on assassinating American citizens. Did they ever flush out those leaks? And how many years do you think they're going to get?
Btw, I have no opinion on what the Paypal 14 did or are alleged to have done because I don't understand what they did or are alleged to have done. I'll let the IT nerds duke that one out.They were part of a denial of service attack which was launched against PayPal because they stopped people from sending money to Assange/Wikileaks.
Basically overload the PayPal traffic so it crashes.
Problem with that that though - is PayPal is used to conduct business by everyday people - mostly people trying to make it on their own outside of the usual "work for a corporation" structure. People who buy and sell on eBay, conduct their own at home business. So these protesters/hackers really shot themselves in the foot when it comes to garnering sympathy from everyday common people.
They launched an attack against a service that was peripheral to the main case. Because PayPal (which I hate) didn't allow donations to a organization that was potentially involved in a crime, they got attacked.
The PayPal 14 should do some time; I do think it's a bit of an overreach on some of the sentences they try to hand out when it comes to protecting business though. Some violent offenders get hit with less potential time. A year (6 months in reality) plus a few years suspended would be reasonable over 15 years imo.
Yeah, I get all of that. I guess I don't understand what a "denial of service" attack is, nor how PayPal could provide 1,000 IPs (?) about the attack, but there are only 14 defendants.
Computer stuff. I don't get it.
More on Obama persecution of journalists, now DOJ going after Fox News Washington correspondent
This seems worth bumping.
Btw, I have no opinion on what the Paypal 14 did or are alleged to have done because I don't understand what they did or are alleged to have done. I'll let the IT nerds duke that one out.They were part of a denial of service attack which was launched against PayPal because they stopped people from sending money to Assange/Wikileaks.
Basically overload the PayPal traffic so it crashes.
Problem with that that though - is PayPal is used to conduct business by everyday people - mostly people trying to make it on their own outside of the usual "work for a corporation" structure. People who buy and sell on eBay, conduct their own at home business. So these protesters/hackers really shot themselves in the foot when it comes to garnering sympathy from everyday common people.
They launched an attack against a service that was peripheral to the main case. Because PayPal (which I hate) didn't allow donations to a organization that was potentially involved in a crime, they got attacked.
The PayPal 14 should do some time; I do think it's a bit of an overreach on some of the sentences they try to hand out when it comes to protecting business though. Some violent offenders get hit with less potential time. A year (6 months in reality) plus a few years suspended would be reasonable over 15 years imo.
Yeah, I get all of that. I guess I don't understand what a "denial of service" attack is, nor how PayPal could provide 1,000 IPs (?) about the attack, but there are only 14 defendants.
Computer stuff. I don't get it.
Those 1000s of IPs were people who had viruses on their system that were performing the attacks without the people knowing about it. They are refered to as a botnet. The viruses look for signals from a host on where to attack. The 14 were found by tracking back the signals from the botnet to their sources.
Recently, a single person was arrested for the largest ddos attack in history, against Spamhause, a spam filtering service. He used a single botnet and amplified it through a flaw in the system.
]Those 1000s of IPs were people who had viruses on their system that were performing the attacks without the people knowing about it. They are refered to as a botnet. The viruses look for signals from a host on where to attack. The 14 were found by tracking back the signals from the botnet to their sources.
Recently, a single person was arrested for the largest ddos attack in history,...
I can follow along with that, but will probably forget it in a few minutes. Thank you for trying, though.
It also reminds me to add the leaker of American involvement in Stuxnet to the list. Thanks again.
Well, I think there was an out for that. Normally, they'd inform the agency when they were seizing a journalist's records. They would not inform the suspected journalist. In this case, they didn't have a particular suspect, so informing the agency risked informing the leaker. I believe there was language about "not compromising the investigation" in the policy.
I don't pretend to have any insight into the world of government leakers and the press, but this doesn't make much sense in relation to what the New Yorker dude said above:
"As Lynn Oberlander, The New Yorker’s general counsel, pointed out in a post this week, the Justice Department’s own guidelines call for the government to inform news organizations when it issues such subpoenas (it was the phone companies that received the actual request in this case), allowing journalists the chance to contest them in court."
If the DOJ informs the agency, and not the journalist, then how does the journalist get a chance to contest the subpoena in court?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been posted at Alpha Centauri for the last 50 years.
I couldn't say. At one point, the DOJ wasn't talking about how they got the phone records from the phone company. I haven't seen any progress on that front.
But I haven't been paying much attention. As I said above, at this late point in the Obama police state game, it seems kind of meh.
Google search reveals: DOJ's secret subpoena of AP phone records broader than initially revealed
"Schultz confirmed that the subpoenas for the phone records were secretly issued to Verizon, which turned them over to the Justice Department without any initial notice to AP. On May 10, Justice notified AP of the subpoenas in a one-sentence letter, citing department guidelines that require such notice for media phone records after 90 days."
Seems like the latter, Comrade Jeff.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can follow along with that, but will probably forget it in a few minutes. Thank you for trying, though.]Those 1000s of IPs were people who had viruses on their system that were performing the attacks without the people knowing about it. They are refered to as a botnet. The viruses look for signals from a host on where to attack. The 14 were found by tracking back the signals from the botnet to their sources.
Recently, a single person was arrested for the largest ddos attack in history,...
In gaming terms -
14 evil Wizards used the spell Dominate Person on a few thousand commoners. They then had these commoners lay siege to the Monetary Keep on the Borderland. After some time the siege was broken, and intrepid adventures who work for the crown used divining magic to see that the commoners were being controlled by these 14 evil wizards. The wizards were angry that the Monetary Keep - which remains neutral in most of the realms business transactions - decided that it do not want the gold coins the wizards were sending to aid an ally. An ally that was despised by the kindom that Governed over the Monetary Keep on the Borderlands.Being a Goblin though, you may not think the wizards or their actions to be evil - but all the people in the land of Prospero did, since the attack disrupted their lives.
The attack on the Monetary Keep was just a minor setback for the throne, but it so infuriated the Watchers at the Gilded Citadel that they were going to treat these 14 wizards as an example least one of their real fortresses should get attacked in the future.
The End
See, now, that just makes me think this Renee Haefer chick is even hawter.
Vive le Galt!
More on the Obama Police State:
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernmentSo much for the transparency we were promised.
Can't have the media seeing what he is up to after allAre you under the impression that this was the sort of government transparency we were promised?
If so, could you show us links to the President promising that this sort of thing would be more transparent?
Bonus question! Do you think a self-styled conservative President would have been more transparent about this, given the history of federal right-wing governance?
Are you under the impression that the Transparency and Open Government directive you linked to promises us that leaks of information pertaining to sensitive matters of national security would not be prosecuted?
I genuinely want to know if you thought that would be the case. Nowhere in that link does the President promise anything of the sort, so if you got the impression that "open government" essentially meant, "We're just gonna declassify everything," I want to know where you got that impression from. Did you really think that's what this meant?
You know what I think? I think you don't care. I think you just picked a really lazy attack on the President's credibility because you can't find a better one. You thought to yourself, "Ooh, here's some ammo!" and went for it, even though you knew your criticism didn't have any basis in reality, because you don't give half a damn about the truth.
HE created the standard i hold him to. Kinda like the sanctity of marriage crowd get extra points for being an ass when they are caught cheating. Obama's administration has done quite a bit wrong and they are pissy about getting caught
More on the Obama Police State:
Too bad there are very few who believe this to even be true...
Did you look at this article? Threatening someones career via email is not a smart move. That said, I don't think local police should have infiltrated a harmless bunch of
potheads. Also, I maintain this is stuff for government folly.
Also, I maintain this is stuff for government folly.
If we just sit around and wait for posts about Benghazi, the Associated Press or the IRS predations upon poor little Tea Partiers, we're only gonna have, like, three posts every other day.
Also, I maintain this is stuff for government folly.If we just sit around and wait for posts about Benghazi, the Associated Press or the IRS predations upon poor little Tea Partiers, we're only gonna have, like, three posts every other day.
exactly. Let's use the thread that had been created for such stuff.
[Rolls around on the floor, crying, banging his fists, kicking his legs and screaming]
No! No! No-no-no-no-n-n-n-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo!
Are you under the impression that the Transparency and Open Government directive you linked to promises us that leaks of information pertaining to sensitive matters of national security would not be prosecuted?I genuinely want to know if you thought that would be the case. Nowhere in that link does the President promise anything of the sort, so if you got the impression that "open government" essentially meant, "We're just gonna declassify everything," I want to know where you got that impression from. Did you really think that's what this meant?
You know what I think? I think you don't care. I think you just picked a really lazy attack on the President's credibility because you can't find a better one. You thought to yourself, "Ooh, here's some ammo!" and went for it, even though you knew your criticism didn't have any basis in reality, because you don't give half a damn about the truth.
Are you under the impression that merely claiming that some information is sensitive in regards to national security is, in fact, evidence for the claim?
That's the thing with whistleblowing. If you have too stringent rules for preventing it, these rules can be used to go after people who say stuff you don't like by merely claiming national security has been endangered. See, for example, the persecution of Thomas Drake. Or, Daniel Ellsberg. Or Jocelyn Radack. Or William Binney.
Are you under the impression that merely claiming that some information is sensitive in regards to national security is, in fact, evidence for the claim?
I acknowledge your point, but that's not what we're discussing right now. Andrew R seems convinced that Obama promised that he wouldn't do this (prosecute leaks of sensitive information), when in fact he promised nothing of the sort, because that would have been insane. Can you imagine the administration actually releasing a directive that says, "Hey, if you want to leak classified secrets to the press, it's cool; we won't come after you."?
So as much as Andrew R would love for this to be a case of Obama going back on his word (because Andrew R really, really hates Obama), it's clearly not. He's just pretending it is, because he is a fundamentally disingenuous person who is more than willing to lie for the sake of his right-wing political leanings.
Well the Justice Department has apparently gone against their own rules about informing News agencies when they are being investigated. So claims of being "the most transparent" administration seems to be false.
Now does that mean Obama has gone back on his word. Maybe not. We are seeing more information that advisers to the President have been keeping information from him (regarding the IRS scandal specifically). So it is maybe others in the administration that are hiding things and not the President.
It should be noted though that at this time it has been stated that the President is apparently okay with being kept out of the loop (so he can't unintentionally influence the investigations that were on going).
Well the Justice Department has apparently gone against their own rules about informing News agencies when they are being investigated. So claims of being "the most transparent" administration seems to be false.
Now does that mean Obama has gone back on his word. Maybe not. We are seeing more information that advisers to the President have been keeping information from him (regarding the IRS scandal specifically). So it is maybe others in the administration that are hiding things and not the President.
It should be noted though that at this time it has been stated that the President is apparently okay with being kept out of the loop (so he can't unintentionally influence the investigations that were on going).
From what I have been able to find out, the AP found out about it after the Justice Department notified the AP. The JD's rules are that they must notify within 90 days, and that was the notification the AP recieved.
My biggest problem is that there is so much different and conflicting information going on I can't make an informed oppinion.
I acknowledge your point, but that's not what we're discussing right now. Andrew R seems convinced that Obama promised that he wouldn't do this (prosecute leaks of sensitive information), when in fact he promised nothing of the sort, because that would have been insane.
Just to make sure: Citizen R. is this what you are convinced of?
From what I have been able to find out, the AP found out about it after the Justice Department notified the AP. The JD's rules are that they must notify within 90 days, and that was the notification the AP recieved.
Again, no expert, but this seems not to jive very well with:
"As Lynn Oberlander, The New Yorker’s general counsel, pointed out in a post this week, the Justice Department’s own guidelines call for the government to inform news organizations when it issues such subpoenas (it was the phone companies that received the actual request in this case), allowing journalists the chance to contest them in court."
(from above)
I suppose the two could go together, but how is a journalist going to contest the subpoena if the gov't has already had the records for 90 days?
From what I have been able to find out, the AP found out about it after the Justice Department notified the AP. The JD's rules are that they must notify within 90 days, and that was the notification the AP recieved.Again, no expert, but this seems not to jive very well with:
"As Lynn Oberlander, The New Yorker’s general counsel, pointed out in a post this week, the Justice Department’s own guidelines call for the government to inform news organizations when it issues such subpoenas (it was the phone companies that received the actual request in this case), allowing journalists the chance to contest them in court."
(from above)
I suppose the two could go together, but how is a journalist going to contest the subpoena if the gov't has already had the records for 90 days?
Like I said, there are so many different reports about what standard policy is and which ones apply that I can't form an opinion. It could be that different standards apply to differnt types of investigations, and people reporting don't know which ones are supposed to apply.
I wouldn't put it past the JD to be doing shady things (I expect it at this point). I just don't know enough about their policies to tell if they are in this case, and the people reporting are being inconsistent and biased enough that I can't tell if the JD actually did anything wrong here.
Well, I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "wrong."
Regardless of whatever the twisted War on Terror doublespeak that passes itself off as the law these days, it seems pretty clear that DOJ went out of their way to avoid judicial review of their subpoena.
It also seems pretty clear, at least to me, that the secret seizure of records for potentially up to 100 journalists (including, I read, an office that hadn't been in operation for years, making a mockery of any claims to be selective and targeted) to track down a leak of a story that ran a year ago and one day before a Presidential announcement of the same story, is a blatant attempt by an administration that has so very much to hide to intimidate future potential leakers and the reporters that they will be speaking to.
Or, anyway, it looks like that to me.
Why Obama Will Walk Away Unscathed by the Current Political Scandals
Hint: It starts with "stooge" and ends with "-ocracy."
You want scandal? How about this?.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating its own citizens.
You want scandal? How about this?.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating its own citizens.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating people.
Fixed that for you. Saying anything else is hypocrisy.
You want scandal? How about this?.
You want scandal? How about this?.Or, for that matter ...
I hesitate to give this too much credence- there's a lot of help returning veterans need, and this o ed is rather condemning of one of the mental health programs set up for them specifically. Still I know all of these programs aren't the best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want scandal? How about this?.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating its own citizens.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating people.
Fixed that for you. Saying anything else is hypocrisy.
Well, it's a step up from--
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like slavery, genocide, apartheid and a government quite overtly terrorizing its own population.
Give us credit. We're learning.
I like your anti-Obama rants Doodlebug.
Then I remember you're a commie...
Vive le Galt!
and thank you, Comrade Kryzbyn.
Pazhalsta, Tovarisch.
You want scandal? How about this?.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating its own citizens.
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating people.
Fixed that for you. Saying anything else is hypocrisy.
Well, it's a step up from--
Because nothing says "freedom" quite like slavery, genocide, apartheid and a government quite overtly terrorizing its own population.
Give us credit. We're learning.
I think we already had a polarizing thread on this.
I think we already had a polarizing thread on this.
Oh, we did. I just don't get why anyone would bother with Benghazi when this is hanging out there...
Political opponents tried to. It did not work then, and probably will not work now. Due processis incredibly important. But the waters get muddied when you have people directly giving aid comfort and information (potentially on that last) to an organization that had already attacked us via terrorism once.
But, snark aside, Citizen Maximus is correct.
"I would suggest you should have had a far more responsible father."
a disgusting comment.