It was a video about a possible attempted 'setup' of someone named Luke Rudkowski who runs an investigative/dissenter/truthseeker blog.
Someone claiming to be a whistleblower had emailed Rudkowski's personal account from an anonymous Tor address supposedly having information that might interest him but attached were graphic images of CP. He was overseas at the time so if he had happened to get detained in customs while reentering the US and had his browser cache searched he'd be in some serious shit. Apparently he'd been detained in the past and had his computer searched.
A nefarious organization could use this method and tip off customs or local law enforcement to discredit a 'radicalizer.' Very scary stuff.
So the police could plant evidence, it then uses. This was the reason our supreme court forbid the usage of these tools, as contra to our constitution.
Non the less, the police and right-wing politicians lobby very hard for the use of these tools.
It would be supremely ironic if all these NSA surveillance shenanigans resulted in a broad invalidation of any digital evidence in a court of law when bothersome people are involved.
Ever wonder if maybe he didn't accidentally post that dick pic to his political twitter feed? That maybe someone else who knew he had another private twitter account which he used to perv out with women online was responsible for putting that pic out on the public twitter feed?
Weiner lost his congressional seat in the fallout and his replacement, Robert Turner, is a republican. The first republican to hold that seat in roughly 80 years.
In Weiner's case, it's conceivable that the first dick pic was posted by a bad actor. Once it's out, and it's clear what's happening, the "well, I didn't mean to post it!" excuse simply doesn't fly. There's really no choice but to admit it and say sorry, and hope your career isn't ruined.
They perceive us as a resource of arrests and prosecutions, for good job performance evaluations.
One that stands out has the cause of targeting as "The U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself", a view Ron Paul holds - I'd hardly call this appropriate targeting of terrorists.
The second one that is perhaps more inappropriate than the first:
"The US perpetrated the 9/11 attacks."
Who said this? A "well-known media celebrity". There are many far right-wing media celebrities who espouse this view. While it's an absurd view, I'd hardly call labeling them as terrorists and targeting them (with intent to discredit) an appropriate reaction.
Pretty disgusting behaviour from the NSA.
Never forget, the one single thing governments are afraid of is the electorate. No terrorist group has toppled a western government as far as I know, but voters do it all the time.
For a certain definition of "government", sure. The elected leadership may change, but think of the (hundreds of) thousands of civil servants who survive in their jobs in the executives and legislatures over the lifetime of many governments...
For example, the first one you mentioned ("The U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself") has also had "writings appear on a number of jihadi websites".
Even combining those two things doesn't make that person a terrorist. OTOH I do think it is reasonable that the NSA has a file on a person like that.
Also, note that the NSA does not label them as terrorists - they use the word "Radicalizers".
Finally, the NSA doesn't actually seem to intend to discredit them - these are merely documented plans for how it could be done if required.
He wasn't transporting any contraband or illegal drugs in that illegal secret compartment, but it's a good thing we got him, since we're pretty sure he did it once before and he was probably on his way to do it again!
This is more like a security guard outside a bank watching someone who turns up at the same time as the cash delivery van every day, stands there watching the cash delivery, and then leaves.
They aren't doing anything wrong, but it would be prudent for the guard to think about some kind of plan if in case that person decides to do more than watch the cash delivered.
From the article, the car reeked of raw marijuana, but they didn't find any in the compartment. The police said it was a good thing they were able to get him, under the illegal modification law, because he probably was transporting. In the context I hope you can see why I made the reference! :)
A written plan to discredit is evidence of intent, but those NSA creeps won't get any jail time. But by the time any lab gets around to analyzing the Ohio arrested person's car for smells, there's a good chance all of the evidence will have "wafted away." And in the case of NSA, it's just like your analogy, only porn instead of bank vault (and internet instead of guard.)
The American Cipher Bureau was just another government agency doing then what the NSA does today.
Note that the page describes the Bureau as spying on negotiating partners: "Its most notable known success was during the Washington Naval Conference during which it aided American negotiators considerably by providing them with the decrypted traffic of many of the Conference delegations, most notably the Japanese."
Sound familiar? I see no reason to think that they weren't doing everything else that today's NSA has been caught doing.
Interesting that now "controversial" means "popular".
Mainstream press is reporting and new things come to light every day. On top of that, the scandal is completely devouring any trust people had in US cloud companies.
It's pretty obnoxious that a scandal that is projected to cost the US tech industry $180 billion by 2016 is treated this way on HN.
The NSA poisoned the tech well in America, and it could mean the end of telecom infrastructure companies in the US and it could prevent the overseas expansion of telecom service providers.
1) Looks like (perhaps) one step short of where we all said it was going - "collect what we can now, never knowing when & how we might need to use it against someone later"
2) Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper/better/whatever to simply fake the data & frame someone?
The people of Nazi Germany were not special, they were no different than any other group of people.
We are all our own worst danger. When we restrain our government through laws and constitutions, it's not to protect ourselves from some "other," it's to protect ourselves from ourselves.
Rendering certain segments of history taboo is a great way to fail to learn from them.
The entire interrogation process AFAICT is infected by detectives and other LEOs committing the fundamental attribution error .
Although the problem remains: the same methods can be used to silence dissidents...
But you and the NSA know which is which, right?