Comments on: How the Guardian protects state secrets, and weak reporting at Ad Age http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/ Steven Brill Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:30:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-423 Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:21:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-423 This is an interesting dialog while most of us bounce between extremes of revelations like that of Snowden as either a leaker (bad) or whistleblower (good?), truth or deception, treason or hero, or complicity of the media in national security agendas while purporting to be the independent Fourth Estate with high journalistic integrity, not controversy-seeking commercial enterprises.

What is clear to the majority of us in the middle just trying to discern the truth with all these obfuscating statements from NSA reps, the media, Members of Congress and the President of the United States is that there is substantial, deliberate misinformation and some outright lying. This is the common definition of lying with intent to deceive, not the prevaricators who struggle to hide reality by quibbling over the definintion of what “is” is. And, people wonder why most people don’t trust the government to do the right thing.

Ben Franklin stated that those who choose security over freedom lose both. It’s quite apparent that we made that choice years ago when we overrode FISA with court review with the euphemistically labeled “Patriot Act” that would more correctly named, “Restriction of Freedoms Act” or “Constitutional Override Act”.

Surveillance of phone calls, not meta (billing) data, by the federal government has been well documented for over half a century back when it was the CIA tapping trunk lines. (Read Tully’s 1960s book on the CIA.) It has also been known and frequently publicized that federal agencies have direct access to all of the telecom switching centers for decades. What are they doing with this access? We also know that the FBI and NSA have pushed for years to provide access to TV and InterNet channels, circumventing encryption. Who is stupid enough to believe that they’re not regularly listening to phone conversations and reading e-mail? Who is stupid enough to believe that technology has not been around for decades?

If the NSA is not doing such surveillance, then why are they asking for tens of billions of dollars to expand their digital storage facilities? This is no secret since it been reported on several media outlets.

Just to make it clear, I personally believe that much of this surveillance is to the benefit of the United States. But, do we have to keep putting up with the disingenous, tongue-in-cheek prevarication from government offices at every level? Any idiot can figure out that if Google and dozens of other InterNet providers are regularly providing full access to tens of thousands of InterNet streams of individuals each year, but the rubber-stamp FISA court has only reviewed about 1700 during the past year – denying none – then most are not even rubber-stamped!

Being treated like idiots is what is insulting.

]]>
By: sylvan http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-422 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 12:11:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-422 So how can people like Andvan, above, buy the Greenwald line that mainstream media is nothing more than dull tools of the NSA for checking with the NSA on national security; but that he and The Guardian are serving the cause of liberty by checking with the NSA. Though I had immense respect for The Guardian’s unveiling of the Murdoch vise grip on UK’s Blair, Brown and Cameron governments by Nick Davies, I am appalled at their unilateral decision to destroy multiple billions in US intelligence assets based on the fact that they know best for us, not our elected leaders; much less their reporter’s major undeclared conflict of interest against the US government for its prior pursuit of Greenwald for unpaid taxes on his illegal pornography distribution ring. But then who better to drive circulation increases than a libertarian white male who victimize females for cold cash while freeing the white males to stage Twitter rants against females who dare voice opinions on anything. The Guardian is a relative newcomer to US, foreign owned, and evidently believes their libertarian, anti-government boy reporter’s opinion is much more important than US voters who elected their government. Letting college drop out pornographers and tax evaders decide national security issues leaked by a high school drop out who was demoted and then defected to China, then Russia; is not responsible journalism in anyway shape or form, especially when boy Glen’s past history was undeclared until he was outed by other journalist, and then howled it was nothing more than retaliation. I realize The Guardian is just trying to pick up their tanking circulation and know that the former page 6 and NOW readers will go somewhere for their libertarian fix; but the US government should not respond to the new boy rag, as it has proven to be unhinged from reality and gulping its own kool-aid.

]]>
By: Bob9999 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-421 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:59:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-421 Given the extent of intelligence sharing between the U.S. and U.K., and the fact that U.K. intelligence gathering apparently is discussed in some of these documents, one has to wonder if some of these U.S.-designated top secret documents are that same as documents with an equivalent designation of secrecy in the U.K. and, if that is the case, whether the Official Secrets Act is implicated.

]]>
By: RobieDH http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-420 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 05:03:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-420 Edward Snowden, Greenwald, the Guardian, and Wilileaks are all Al-Qaeda sympathizers. They are aiding an abetting terrorist. They are now an “Enemy of the State” Where in hell are our DRONES???

]]>
By: Burn1938 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-419 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:55:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-419 Good comment on The Guardián . They seem to believe that they can decide what could , or could not , be published . A decision which could affect the lives and security of thousands . Arrogant left wingers !

]]>
By: Andvari http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/2013/08/06/how-the-guardian-protects-state-secrets-and-weak-reporting-at-ad-age/comment-page-1/#comment-418 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:52:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/stories-id-like-to-see/?p=1009#comment-418 Steven, I love your work, but you must have missed an interview or two on the Snowden case. Both the editors of the Guardian and Greenwald himself in the interviews I’ve seen have said that some, not all the documents have been vetted by the NSA. And yes, most times the NSA says that all should be redacted, but thankfully that hasn’t happened.

And I agree with Greenwald, that the mainstream media are lackeys for the national security state and shills for corporate America.

]]>