The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: July 2017
Judge: Campus Carry Doesn’t Hurt Free Speech – Reason (blog)
Posted: July 14, 2017 at 5:00 am
Three University of Texas at Austin professors filed a lawsuit claiming that letting people carry firearms on their campus would have a chilling effect on speech. Last week, District Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the suit claiming the professors could present "no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" and that their fears rest on "mere conjecture." Although it's certainly refreshing to see professors using First Amendment justifications with such vigor, it's even better that Yeakel dismissed their ludicrous arguments and protected campus carry.
In 2015, the Texas legislature strengthened their commitment to gun rights at public universities. Senate Bill 11, which came into effect in August 2016, permitted campus concealed carry in campus buildings within reasonable guidelines. Those guidelines vary from school to school. At UT Austin, guns must stay out of sight, and individuals professors can choose to make "gun-free zones" in their offices, provided they post their rules clearly.
Professors Jennifer Lynn Glass (sociology), Lisa Moore (English), and Mia Carter (English) banded together and filed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the new law. One professor argued that the "possibility of the presence of concealed weapons in a classroom impedes my and other professors' ability to create a daring, intellectually active, mutually supportive, and engaged community of thinkers." Their reasoning centered around the idea that students will be unable to speak freelya First Amendment argumentin an environment where other students are armed.
But this logic posits that students will pull guns on each other when they hear ideas they disagree withan unlikely outcome. Even for controversial topics like abortion and, ironically, gun rights, it would be beyond the scope of reason to expect that a classroom conversation would become so heated that a student's life would be threatened.
Judge Yeakel drew on the reasoning in the 1972 free speech case Laird v. Tatum, which said that "Allegations of a subjective 'chill' are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm."
Yeakel then used the precedent of Laird, and lack of specific evidence, as grounds for dismissal: "Here, Plaintiffs ask the court to find standing based on their self-imposed censoring of classroom discussions caused by their fear of the possibility of illegal activity by persons not joined in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" He's right that there's no evidence that this law has caused harm in the way they claim. Unfortunately, Yeakel only addressed a small part of the professors' argumentthe speech-related points. They also brought up issues with equal protection and the law's vagueness, so it's likely that this issue won't be fully laid to rest.
On one hand, it's good that college professors are recognizing the value of creating environments for free speech to thrive in. On the other, this seems like a thinly veiled political move, and it's unlikely that opponents of campus carry laws will be quelled by this lawsuit's dismissal. Hopefully these professors remain committed to the First Amendment principles they hold so dear whenever they're threatened in a classroom environment. They're certainly right about one thing: exchanging ideas freely is the whole damn point of college.
See more here:
Judge: Campus Carry Doesn't Hurt Free Speech - Reason (blog)
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Judge: Campus Carry Doesn’t Hurt Free Speech – Reason (blog)
Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? – Roanoke Times
Posted: at 5:00 am
Preece is retired. He lives on a farm in Botetourt County.
On Nov. 14, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United gave corporations the same rights as American citizens by allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. The Supreme Court did this by defining money as free speech.
Does it make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy businesses as free speech when money as free speech buys votes with advertising and obligates leaders to serve the source of that money though contributions? Does it even make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy individual citizens as free speech when, again, money as free speech buys votes and politicians?
Doesnt money as free speech promote multiple votes for some citizens, and only one vote for others? Doesnt money as free speech defeat the essential idea of democracy? Even if such nonsense made sense, does it make sense for a corporate officer to vote once as himself and a second time as the corporation? Isnt that one man, two votes?
When a voter receives most of the information about a candidate from advertising that has been paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals, such a voters judgement is significantly influenced. The question arises: Does that citizens vote then come from his own judgment or from the intent of the person that paid for the advertising?
When a politician receives most of the money that gets him elected from a particular source, doesnt that obligate him to favor that particular source in his future political judgment? The question arises: Do the future decisions of the politician originate from his authentic judgment or from judgment favoring the money that got him elected?
Amendments to change the U.S. Constitution are provided for in article V of the constitution. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to our countrys living document are called the Bill of Rights. A citizens right to free speech was established by the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It was intended to protect human beings from the power of the state so that they could speak freely, not so that powerful moneyed interest could be allowed to rule the country like kings and oligarchs.
Thanks to an amendment to the Constitution, America has no slaves. Thanks to another amendment, women get to vote. Thanks to yet another amendment, we get to elect our state senators; and we even get to share an alcoholic drink with a friend if we like.
As American citizens, we have the obligation to advance amendments to our Constitution when we perceive that current laws of the land make no sense. Corporations as citizens makes no sense. We the people need to act to change this. The goal of each American citizen, Republican, Democrat or independent, should be to shift the power of citizenship and the vote back to the people of the United States, and that means away from corporations and big money.
Perhaps you should ask yourself, Should I, an ordinary American citizen, simply accept the present reality that I am not rich enough to deserve the right to free speech or the right to vote? Or should I feel enraged that the ideals of American democracy have been perverted?
Continue reading here:
Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? - Roanoke Times
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? – Roanoke Times
Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? – Inside Higher Ed
Posted: at 5:00 am
Inside Higher Ed | Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? Inside Higher Ed It is clear that lawmakers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are attempting to achieve politically neutral college campuses in the name of protecting free speech -- campuses where all speech is considered equally valuable, no matter how morally repugnant, ... |
Follow this link:
Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? - Inside Higher Ed
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? – Inside Higher Ed
Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior – Mother Jones
Posted: at 5:00 am
Kevin DrumJul. 13, 2017 2:00 PM
We have news from National Review today:
National Review Institute is launching the Center for Unalienable Rights, created to be the home of free-speech warrior David French, whose new podcast, The Liberty Files, is a must-listen for anyone who cares deeply about combating the leftist assault on the First Amendment, whether on our campuses or in any other place patrolled by the ruthless Thought Police.
.The Left wants to gag, marginalize, intimidate, shut up, and, if they can, even criminalize conservatives for what we think and what we say. We intend to fight the intolligentsia, in a more focused way. We intend to beat the determined enemies of our unalienable rights. Help us prevail.
You are expecting me to mock this, arent you? But Im not! Instead I have a serious suggestion.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberals who are concerned about this stuff too. The safe spaces/microaggressions/hecklers veto/trigger warnings movement is not entirely beloved on the left. If this project were toned down and aimed at free speech repression on both sides, it might actually attract some bipartisan support.
I know thats not really plausible these days. I just felt like mentioning it.
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.
See original here:
Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior - Mother Jones
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior – Mother Jones
Verify: When does free speech become harassment? – KREM.com
Posted: at 5:00 am
Amanda Roley , KREM 5:46 PM. PDT July 13, 2017
SPOKANE, Wash. -- A woman is facing multiple counts of malicious harassment after court documents said she yelled racially motivated comments at her neighbors.
Court records show the cell phone video was taken of Shalisha Israel yelling things like, "You guys drug dealers or something," and "I think you might be terrorists! This is not your America! You are evil!"
PREVIOUS STORY:Woman arrested after harassing neighbors, calling them 'terrorists'
KREM 2 posted the story online and many people commented that what the woman said was not right but what about her freedom of speech?
To verify when your first amendment rights are protected and when it turns into harassment KREM 2 talked to First Amendment lawyer David Bodney.
He said the line between your freedom of speech and harassment is drawn with three exceptions to your First Amendment rights. The first is, if the statement constitutes incitement. Meaning if there is a serious risk of imminent harm, it is possible your speech can be limited. The second exception is if the speech uses "fighting words" meaning if someone continues to provoke another in close proximity using language that would cause a person to respond aggressively. The final exception, is if the speaker says a true threat, which is where the speaker communicates in a way that is a true threat to the safety of the recipient. However, Bodney said these three exceptions are fairly difficult to prove.
"There are not a lot of fighting word cases out there, and there are not a whole lot of true threat cases out there. And thought the court recognizes this notion of what constitutes incitement, it's a very difficult standard to meet," Bodney said.
Bodney adds that your first amendment right is not absolute. In the case of this woman who shouted racial remarks at her neighbors, Bodney said the video does not show any pronounced evidence of the three exceptions to free speech. Even though the first amendment could be used as a defense, Bodney said it could still go in the victim's favor.
"If the speech is annoying, alarming or otherwise meets the test of a state statute that define harassment it may well be possible to get an order to restrain that kind of speech," Bodney explains.
KREM 2 can verify there are exceptions to your first amendment rights that would classify your speech as harassment. Before you exercise those rights, make sure your speech does not include fighting words, a true threat or constitute incitement.
Help our journalists VERIFY the news.Do you know someone else we should interview for this story? Did we miss anything in our reporting? Is there another story you'd like us to VERIFY?Click here.
2017 KREM-TV
More here:
Verify: When does free speech become harassment? - KREM.com
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Verify: When does free speech become harassment? – KREM.com
At NATO Headquarters, Trump Fails Another Leadership Test
Posted: at 4:57 am
Even when a moment designed to affirm some of Americas basic principles is dangled before him, President Donald Trump has a way of batting it aside. In Brussels on Thursday, as he stood at a rostrum at a ceremony in front of the new NATO headquarters, Trump had, to his left, a mangled girder from the World Trade Center; to his right, broken slabs of the Berlin Wall, both of which were being dedicated as memorials; and, behind him, the leaders of the twenty-seven other countries in the alliance. One of them, Germanys Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had just delivered remarks that served as a reminder that, until she was thirty-five years old, she had lived behind that wall, and had been part of the civic movement that peacefully reunified Germany. Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO , who had introduced Merkel, noted that she had been among the crowds filling the streets of East Berlin on the night the Wall came down. A few minutes later, when Stoltenberg introduced Trump, he summoned a personal connection for him, too, noting that the 9/11 terrorists struck at the heart of your own home town, New York. That attack marked the only time that NATO has invoked Article 5 of its charter, the mutual-defense provision, which the new headquarters 9/11 memorial was also supposed to commemorate. In what may have been an attempt at Trump-friendly sloganeering, Stoltenberg summed up Article 5 by declaring, gamely, All for one, and one for all! But Trump had come to praise other ideals, other lands, and other leaders.
He had just come from Saudi Arabia , Trump told the NATO leaders, in a brief speech. There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.That meeting had beenhistoric, Trump said. The leaders of the Middle East had promised him that they would stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe. So that should take care of the problem. He did not define radical ideology,or acknowledge that he was praising a monarch in what seemed to be an attempt to put the assembled elected leaders of democracies to shame. Trumps world view seems to combine a distaste for Islam with a predilection for monarchs of any backgroundfor anyone with a decent palace, really. In viewing his world travels, that mixture can be confusing, but it should not be mistaken for a sign of budding tolerance. (As has been widely noted, Trump once called Brussels ahellhole, on account of its large number of immigrantsmany of whom came from countries whose repressive leaders had joined him at the summit in Riyadh. He has said similar things about Paris: No one wants to go to Paris anymore. When Trump was in Riyadh, though, he couldnt stop talking about how fancy the new buildings were.)He did express his sympathy to Prime Minister Theresa May, of the United Kingdom, who was also in attendance, for the Manchester attack (terrible thing), and called for a moment of silence to honor the dead. But he quickly moved to chastising the leaders for not having taken seriously enough the need for building walls, rather than taking them down.
Terrorism must be stopped in its tracks, orthe horror you saw in Manchester and so many other places will continue forever,Trump said. You have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries and spreading throughout, and in many cases we have no idea who they are.He seemed to suggest that thetracksthat terrorism was on were the same paths that refugees followed, or perhaps just the roads that ran through the deliberately unpoliced borders of the European Union. We must be tough. We must be strong. And we must be vigilant,he continued. The other leaders watched him, with whatever sort of vigilance each thought necessary, as he went on to tell them that they needed to spend more money on defense, and offered his explanation for why.
The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO s eastern and southern borders.These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations.(It is worth noting thatimmigration,without any qualifying phrase, is on Trumps list ofgrave security concerns, which raises the question of where and when he thinks that immigration, including to America, makes a country stronger.) Twenty-three NATO countries were not meeting the alliances target of spending at least two per cent of their G.D.P. on defense, he said, while the UnitedStateswas exceeding that number. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States,Trump said. The idea that other things might be unfair to the American peoplethat, for example, the levelof defense spending might be too high at a time when the Trump Administrations budget is cutting money meant to help children and the disabledhad not seemed to enter his mind. Still, the NATO members had already agreed to spend more money.
Merkel, in her remarks, expressed her countrys unending gratitude toward NATO for the role it played in German reunification. But she also focussed on the people of Central and Eastern Europe, whosecourage,she said, was one of the reasons that pieces of the Berlin Wall were now justa memento.Their courage included crossing borders and, in some cases, risking and even losing their lives in dashes across the no mans land that separated East and West Berlin. Ronald Reagans 1987 Berlin speech, in which he demanded,Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,expressed valuesopenness and democracy among themthat Trump seemed to shrug at. But, as important as Reagans message may have been at the time,andas well as it has stood up in the judgment of history, the moment two years later, when the Wall was brought down not by a Soviet official but by crowds of ordinary East Germans, caught NATO by surprise. The force of the aspiration for freedom, and the will to move to where it can be found, often comes upon governments unexpectedly. ButReagans voice had been one of leadership. Trumps was not, unless you define leadership as always getting to be the one in front. A video caught Trump winning that position by shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro, and then seeming not to notice him. (During the campaign, Trump had wondered why Americans would want to defend countries whose names they couldnt even remember.)
European leaders were reportedly hoping for an affirmation of Article 5 in Trumps remarks; they didnt get it. In general, the approach of his hosts on this trip seems to have been to hope very much that he doesnt actually break anything. Remarks have been kept short, flattery longa reminder, as with the international and unmerited fting of Ivanka, of how Trumpism lowers the level of dialogue all around. Trump does like it when people give gifts (though he may not have appreciated it when Pope Francis, at the Vatican, handed him a copy of his encyclical on climate change), and so he thanked the 9/11 Museum, in New York, which had donated the girders, and Merkel, as a representative of Germany, for donating the slabs. He spoke a few sentences about the memorials symbolic power. But, as he looked around at the new headquarters, he seemed, again, to be dwelling on a different definition of a value.
And I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost,he said, as if he should be thanked for that act of restraint. I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.It was not, perhaps, what Trump would have built. But what would have been the price of that?
Go here to read the rest:
At NATO Headquarters, Trump Fails Another Leadership Test
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on At NATO Headquarters, Trump Fails Another Leadership Test
NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders – Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Posted: at 4:57 am
Wall Street Journal (subscription) | NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders Wall Street Journal (subscription) At NATO headquarters in the Belgian capital, Russian representatives outlined the troops, ships, aircraft and weaponry that will participate in the joint Russian-Belarusian regional exercises scheduled for September, partly on Belarus's. |
See more here:
NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on NATO, Moscow Squabble Over Russian War Games Near Alliance Borders – Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Questions for Head of Bahrain’s NSA 10 Days After Ebtisam al Saegh’s Arrest – HuffPost
Posted: at 4:57 am
Dear Sheikh Talal bin Mohammed bin Khalifa Al Khalifa,
I understand you are President of Bahrains National Security Agency (NSA), appointed by your relative the King of Bahrain last August under 2016s royal decree 66.
I write out of concern for human Rights defender Ebtisam Al Saegh, who I understand has been in NSA custody since July 3 when men wearing masks and carrying weapons seized her from her home.
According to reports I have received she has undergone a series of long and abusive interrogations over the last 10 days, some lasting more than 12 hours. For instance, I understand that she was removed from Isa Town Womens Detention Centre at 9am yesterday morning and not returned until 3 am this morning, and was again taken at noon today.
Those who have seen her are seriously alarmed about her health, and fear that she might be left with a permanent disability.
Two days after she was taken, her family lodged complaints with the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman Office and the National Institute for Human Rights. The following day - July 6 - masked men again raided her home, took all the mobile phones in the house, and said "your mother didn't cooperate with us.
As you know, she was previously summoned for interrogation by the NSA on May 26 and held for seven hours. On her release she was hospitalized, injured and traumatized. She said during those hours she was forced to stand throughout the interrogation, blindfolded, and sexually assaulted. She also says she was threatened with rape. She told me she was severely beaten and punched on the head and different parts of the body when she used human rights terms to describe her work, and that her interrogators threatened to harm her children.
I have known Ebtisam al Saegh for six years and I know she is not a liar. She told me that during the torture she was questioned about other Bahraini activists, about myself and about Human Rights First.
Im sure you are aware of the international outcry there was over what happened in May, and about her latest arrest, and the increased scrutiny the NSA now faces. Her case has been raised at the U.S. State Department and in the British parliament.
Since the NSAs powers of arrest were restored earlier this year, following devastating criticism of the agency and the stripping of some of its authority in 2011, a series of reports have emerged of detainees being tortured in NSA custody. We fear the abuse of Al Saegh is not an isolated incident.
Sheikh Al Khalifa, as president of the NSA you have some serious questions to answer about the conduct of those under your supervision.
Can you tell us how you have investigated the allegations of torture made in May, what your findings were and what action you have taken?
Can you also explain why Ebtisam Al Saegh has not been allowed access to a lawyer in the last 10 days, or why her family have not been permitted to see her?
Will you commit to investigating all allegations of mistreatment or torture committed by the NSA and hold those responsible to account?
Sheikh Al Khalifa, I am one of many worried about what is happening to Ebstisam al Saegh. Your speedy answers to these questions would be appreciated by us all.
The Morning Email
Wake up to the day's most important news.
Read this article:
Questions for Head of Bahrain's NSA 10 Days After Ebtisam al Saegh's Arrest - HuffPost
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Questions for Head of Bahrain’s NSA 10 Days After Ebtisam al Saegh’s Arrest – HuffPost
Edward Snowden’s leaks has NSA in damage-control mode, spy agency official tells Lancaster audience – LancasterOnline
Posted: at 4:57 am
A high-ranking official of the National Security Agency said in a talk here Wednesday that the electronic surveillance agency is working to improve its public relations in the wake of Edward Snowdens damaging leaks.
Jonathan Darby, the NSAs deputy chief of cybersecurity operations, said the agency realized it had to get out and talk more about what we do after Snowden in 2013 revealed ways in which U.S. spy agencies collect phone, email and other communications.
Darby contended that most of the Snowden-related stories in 2013 were twisted or dead-out wrong, and he pushed back on a movie glorifying the former NSA contractors actions, saying the leaks put peoples lives at risk.
Snowden fled to Moscow in June 2013 after he was identified as the source of information several newspapers printed about previously undisclosed NSA surveillance programs. Snowden remains in Russia, where he was granted asylum until 2020.
Before an audience of 180 at a Lancaster Rotary Club luncheon, Darby portrayed the NSA as scrupulously law-abiding and completely accountable to Congress and the courts.
If the law does not affirmatively give us the authority to take an action, we can not and we will not do it, said Darby, a Montana native who joined the NSA in 1983 as a foreign language analyst. We do not independently decide what to collect.
He said the $11-billion NSA is a joint military-civilian spy agency with the dual mission of intercepting foreign communications and protecting U.S. government communications.
This spy agency spies. Thats what we do, legally and within policy guidelines, he said.
Darby stressed that the NSA does not spy on Americans at home or abroad unless a federal judge approves it.
Also, if the communications of an American are intercepted incidentally through the valid targeting of a foreigner, the Americans communication is masked, he said. The procedures, in place for decades, have government and court approval, he said.
Darby defended a program, up for Congressional renewal this year, that allows the NSA to compel a U.S. communications company to turn over communications of noncitizens outside of the United States.
Saying the program prevents terrorist attacks, Darby pointed to the 2009 arrest of a man who planned a bombing on a New York City subway.
Darby pushed back against the perception that the NSA indiscriminately vacuums up all communications around the world.
He said the quantity of data the NSA collects is analogous to a dime on the floor of a basketball court.
Darby said NSA employees take an oath to defend the Constitution, including its guarantees of civil liberties.
Some will say that (strict oversight and legal restrictions) ties one arm behind our back, Darby said. As an NSAer, I say, Damn straight. Thats fine. Thats who we are as a country.
Asked about allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, Darby said the NSA joined with the FBI and CIA in coming to that assessment.
It goes back to, Heres the facts, Darby said. We laid out the facts.
On cybersecurity, Darby said the country increasingly understands the threats to the nations computer networks and that existing security measures arent adequate for the long term.
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Edward Snowden’s leaks has NSA in damage-control mode, spy agency official tells Lancaster audience – LancasterOnline
Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake – The Hill (blog)
Posted: at 4:57 am
Early last month, Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDan CoatsGranting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake Sessions, deputy AG to tour Guantanamo Bay prison The Memo: GOP pushes Trump to curb Mueller attacks MOREreneged on a promisethat the National Security Agency would provide an estimate of just how many Americans have seen their communications collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was the same broken promise made to Congress by his predecessor, James Clapper.
Indeed, for the past six years, the NSA has flummoxed congressional oversight with its reluctance to give lawmakers this kind of hard data. And yet, despite this pattern of obfuscation of promising transparency and then dialing back said promisesCongress is now debating a bill that would give immense power to that same agency.
The legislation, which has left many privacy advocates aghast, comes in the form ofa proposalby Sen. Tom CottonTom CottonOvernight Finance: GOP goes after arbitration rule | Bill allocates .6B for Trump border wall | Fed officials cautious on rate hike | McConnell aiming for debt vote before August recess Overnight Regulation: GOP senator aims to repeal arbitration rule | Feds to rethink fuel efficiency fines | EPA moves to roll back restrictions on Alaska mine Lawmakers press Sessions over online gambling MORE (R-Ark.) for a so-called "clean" reauthorization that would leave the current Section 702 intact. Of course, it isn't actually clean, in that Cotton's bill would remove the sunset provision that forces the program to expireDec. 31unless Congress explicitly re-authorizes it. In other words, even as Coats now deems it infeasible that the NSA will ever tell Congress how many Americans have been surveilled under Section 702a number that likely would shock the conscienceCotton wants to ensure 702 is never up for debate again.
Coatsexplainedto the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that the NSA ended about collectionthat is, the practice of collecting digital communications in which a foreign target is mentioned, but is not the sender or recipientdue to technical limitations on the agency's ability to protect wholly domestic communications. However, he didnt rule out resuming about collection if the agency discovers a technological fix. Paul Morris, deputy general counsel for operation at the NSA,toldthe Senate Judiciary Committee several weeks later they might decide to come back to it anytime. NSA representatives also havewarnedthey would oppose a permanent legislative ban on this type of collection.
A recurring theme from law-enforcement and intelligence community representatives in recent House and Senate hearings is that technological developments can drastically change how government conducts surveillance. But even as agency representatives tell us how rapidly surveillance methods change, a permanent reauthorization of current surveillance methods presumes that future revolutions in technology won't affect Americans relative privacy. Not long ago, few could have conceived of an email or that it would become a major tool of communication.
If the intelligence community decides to resume about collection, a method proven to have violated Americans rights in the past, Congresss oversight role should not be hamstrung by a permanent reauthorization. Eliminating the law's sunset provision would limit Congress's ability to revisit these questions and examine exactly how surveillance methods might change in the future. With far-reaching technological change always looming, Congress must periodically revisit the legal authority behind these intelligence tools both to ensure they remain effective at protecting the nation, and that adapting an old law to new technologies doesnt open the door to abuse.
Establishing a sunset for the program shouldnt be anathema to those who are primarily concerned with national security. To the contrary, it is the best way to ensure the program remains viable and accomplishes the purpose of keeping Americans safe. Permanent reauthorization would limit any attempts to modify surveillance. It also increases the risk of another leak and public outcry, which easily leads to a knee-jerk reaction. Intelligence agencies could shy away from reasonable and effective procedures, absent any obligation to report to congressional oversight.
A kid genius working from a basement today may change the way our systems work tomorrow, crippling the effectiveness of Section 702 or opening the door to abuse. Giving law enforcement and the intelligence community's great power without built in opportunities to revisit that authorization would be a disservice to the security and civil rights of the American people. In the end, the most critical reform to Section 702 might already be part of thestatus quo.
Arthur Rizer(@ArthurRizer)is the national security and justice policy director at the R Street Institute, and Ashkhen Kazaryan (@Ashkhen) is an affiliated fellow at the non-profit TechFreedom.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.
See more here:
Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake - The Hill (blog)
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake – The Hill (blog)







