Are You Fine with the NSA Sharing Data with Israel?

[phattonez]

Because they've done it. Yes or no.

EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.

 

[a351]

It largely depends on the circumstance. As one example, I'd support data swapping in the event that a homegrown terror cell could potentially pose harm to overseas interests.

 

[DiAnna]

We've been exchanging data with Israel and vice-versa for as long as Israel has existed. This is not a revelation.

EDIT: To clarify, nobody in Israel is interested in my personal information. If I start getting spam from Tel Aviv trying to sell me property in the West Bank, then I'll be concerned. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Goshin]

If it includes personal info on American citizens who are NOT suspected terrorists, I have a problem with that. From what I heard, this is the case.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, Israel is an important ally and excellent source of intel. If we had numbers used by terrorists here and didn't share the info with Israel, that would be stupid.

 

[Fisher]

It doesn't matter what we think. Nothing will stop it and it isn't like Israel hasn't been caught spying on the US anyway.

 

[ChezC3]

I am not fine with the NSA having my information nevermind them sharing it...

 

[Ikari]

Because they've done it. Yes or no.

EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.

I'm not OK with the NSA collecting it in the first place, let alone selling it to Israel. For whatever reason we're giving crap to Israel for.

 

[cpwill]

:shrug: Generally speaking intelligence information is shared with other nations when the venue is to enable joint operations, when the information is given to us by that other nation, or when it is part of a shared collection mission (as an example, part of the deal of setting up a collection platform in an allied country can be that the information gathered is shared with the host-nation). One target is transnational networks that violate arms-shipment restrictions; so, for example, if the NSA and the Mossad were sharing information targeting people trying to smuggle weapons either from the U.S. to Gaza or visa-versa (as a single example), then that would make sense.


We probably get quite a lot from our intelligence relationship with the Israelis. No one else is better at collecting on the kinds of loose networks of Islamic Jihadists than they are, and deciding to end that relationship because we are aghast at the notion that a U.S. citizen might be a bad actor would be.... well, it would be a very bad idea.

 

[humbolt]

Sure. Share it. I've already told the NSA all their information about me is wrong by about 180 degrees. I am not a dog. Just because I use a picture of one in place of my actual photo does not constitute proof of all they contend.

 

[phattonez]

and deciding to end that relationship because we are aghast at the notion that a U.S. citizen might be a bad actor would be.... well, it would be a very bad idea.

They are getting unfiltered data, that is data on ALL Americans, not just suspected terrorists. But please, try again with your excuses.

 

[Canell]

Why, the Lord already knows every little step I make, isn't that right?

 

[jamesrage]

Because they've done it. Yes or no.

EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.

I am not comfortable with the NSA spying on Americans.So I am most certainly not comfortable with the NSA sharing any data with another country.

 

[cpwill]

They are getting unfiltered data, that is data on ALL Americans, not just suspected terrorists. But please, try again with your excuses.

Ah, no. That is not correct. Allow me to quote the guy whose credibility on this is questionable, but whom certain more excitable elements have decided to glorify:

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel that probably includes sensitive information about Americans, according to the latest top-secret document leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

The 2009 document, a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, says the U.S. government regularly hands over intercepted communications that have not first been reviewed by U.S. analysts and therefore may contain phone calls and emails of American citizens.

The agreement allows for the possibility that intercepts given to Israel might include the communications of U.S. government officials, in which case Israel is supposed to destroy them immediately. Other data on U.S. citizens who aren't in the government, however, can be kept by Israel for up to a year, according to the document, first published Wednesday by Britain's Guardian newspaper.

NSA officials declined to answer questions but issued a statement saying, "Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect U.S. person information."...

probably.... maybe.... might..... some.

Snowden (again) is talking about stuff about which he knows very little. I guess either it's been too long since he's seen himself in the papers, or his new Russian friends wanted to create problems at home for the Obama administration in order to secure their Syria deal.

But please, tell me more given your vast background knowledge of U.S. defense and the intelligence community.

Because the last time you believed what the hyperventilators told you, you suggested that we were about to invade Libya with a single battalion of Marines.

Further down the article...

The reason that risks are taken with Israel, the second former official said, is because Israel and the U.S. have many mutual foreign policy interests, and Israel in some cases has greater expertise in Middle Eastern languages and cultures.

"Managing the intel-sharing relationship is always kind of a quid pro quo," the official said. "One country may have access to certain communications that we can't otherwise get, so there are decisions made at fairly high levels whether or not it's worth it to share."

Hey, that's interesting. That sounds pretty much exactly like what I said .

 

[phattonez]

Fine then, let's ask Americans if they are fine with the NSA handing over communications that haven't been filtered to ensure that our privacy is safe. Do you really think that they're fine with that?

Why is it that you see the government as an awful and terrible entity when it comes to social spending, but an eminent deity when it comes to the military?

 

[Ben K.]

Ah, no. That is not correct. Allow me to quote the guy whose credibility on this is questionable, but whom certain more excitable elements have decided to glorify:



probably.... maybe.... might..... some.

Snowden (again) is talking about stuff about which he knows very little. I guess either it's been too long since he's seen himself in the papers, or his new Russian friends wanted to create problems at home for the Obama administration in order to secure their Syria deal.

But please, tell me more given your vast background knowledge of U.S. defense and the intelligence community.

Because the last time you believed what the hyperventilators told you, you suggested that we were about to invade Libya with a single battalion of Marines.

Further down the article...



Hey, that's interesting. That sounds pretty much exactly like what I said .

I think you give Snowden too much credit in that he analyses the data and feeds the analysis to the media. The media analyses the raw data he provided. His personal credibility is a non issue.

 

[cpwill]

Fine then, let's ask Americans if they are fine with the NSA handing over communications that haven't been filtered to ensure that our privacy is safe. Do you really think that they're fine with that?

Why is it that you see the government as an awful and terrible entity when it comes to social spending, but an eminent deity when it comes to the military?

I don't see it in either set of terms. Manichaeism is a construct for those who prefer the soothing tones of simple narratives over more complex reality. Most of our social spending is a mixture of well-intentioned and politically driven efforts by fallible human beings to do the right thing as near as they see it and most of our national security efforts are the same (Our social spending is simply currently structured to produce massive destructive and unintended consequences, which agreeably can be part and parcel of our national security efforts as well). I find the same hyperventilating against both:

"Obammer is a athiest kenyan muslim who's gonna have the IRS and FEMA take all our guns and make us marry gays!",

and

"Evil shadowy no-good evil-doers in smoky rooms are gonna read my emails, find out I'm cheating on my girlfriend and give that information to the Israelis, and have me assassinated for blogging about it!"

to be equal parts ludicrous and self-destructive. These things tend to do more damage to their own side through guilt-by-association than they do good by raising public awareness of their concerns, not least because they tend to assume that those opposed to them (or who simply disagree with them) are evil rather than in a state of disagreement.

We have an intelligence sharing relationship not just with the Israelis, and also with Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. so on and so forth - if we didn't, our national security posture would be severely weakened; we depend on the efforts of our partner nations just as they depend on ours. Heck, if we were tracking a transnational criminal unit that operated back and forth between ourselves and China (such as the Triads or some such) we would probably even share information on those cases with our Chinese counterparts. That doesn't mean (and you'll note he doesn't even make the claim that it means) that we give them access to everyone's email. It means we share information on these groups, and try to help with vetted collection requests when beneficial.

You know how folks are always talking about how we need to work with other countries, have a reduced presence, etc., instead of trying to be hegemon and go it alone? Welcome to the reality of that policy.

 

[cpwill]

I think you give Snowden too much credit in that he analyses the data and feeds the analysis to the media. The media analyses the raw data he provided. His personal credibility is a non issue.

:shrug: It's pretty obvious he went with and chose his data for the first batches, it's hard to imagine (if he is still a free actor) that he's not doing the same now.

 

[phattonez]

I don't see it in either set of terms. Manichaeism is a construct for those who prefer the soothing tones of simple narratives over more complex reality. Most of our social spending is a mixture of well-intentioned and politically driven efforts by fallible human beings to do the right thing as near as they see it and most of our national security efforts are the same (Our social spending is simply currently structured to produce massive destructive and unintended consequences, which agreeably can be part and parcel of our national security efforts as well). I find the same hyperventilating against both:

If it was all good intentions then we would have given up minimum wage and foreign aid decades ago. The carnage that the US military brings overseas cannot be denied. You're speaking nonsense.

"Evil shadowy no-good evil-doers in smoky rooms are gonna read my emails, find out I'm cheating on my girlfriend and give that information to the Israelis, and have me assassinated for blogging about it!"

to be equal parts ludicrous and self-destructive. These things tend to do more damage to their own side through guilt-by-association than they do good by raising public awareness of their concerns, not least because they tend to assume that those opposed to them (or who simply disagree with them) are evil rather than in a state of disagreement.

We have an intelligence sharing relationship not just with the Israelis, and also with Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. so on and so forth - if we didn't, our national security posture would be severely weakened; we depend on the efforts of our partner nations just as they depend on ours. Heck, if we were tracking a transnational criminal unit that operated back and forth between ourselves and China (such as the Triads or some such) we would probably even share information on those cases with our Chinese counterparts. That doesn't mean (and you'll note he doesn't even make the claim that it means) that we give them access to everyone's email. It means we share information on these groups, and try to help with vetted collection requests when beneficial.

Ugh, give it a rest. This garbage needs to end. There is NO REASON that the US government needs all of this information. NONE. And not only are they taking it, but they're distributing it around the world? This is loathsome, and what's worse is that you defend it.

You know how folks are always talking about how we need to work with other countries, have a reduced presence, etc., instead of trying to be hegemon and go it alone? Welcome to the reality of that policy.

I'd rather trade goods with them rather than teaming up on invading and toppling other nations myself. Guess I'm just some crazy idealist, though.

 

[Smeagol]

I'm okay with the NSA sharing information in a general sense with any country they feel is appropriate. I am against the NSA having any information on ME, let alone share it with anyone.

 

[Capster78]

I really don't understand what the issue is. It is not like the NSA is going to be sharing your personal phone conversation with your mother-in-law about what your going to eat for christmas dinner really matters to the NSA. I really don't understand the alarmism over this information collection and sharing. The NSA / US Government is simply not interested in information about the every day law abiding citizen. I am not sure why people think that the government would be interested in there otherwise uninteresting lives. Maybe because they want to feel important?? I really don't know. I still have not heard one good reason to fear information gathering by the government.

 

[cpwill]

If it was all good intentions then we would have given up minimum wage and foreign aid decades ago. The carnage that the US military brings overseas cannot be denied. You're speaking nonsense.

hey, remember this part?

to be equal parts ludicrous and self-destructive. These things tend to do more damage to their own side through guilt-by-association than they do good by raising public awareness of their concerns, not least because they tend to assume that those opposed to them (or who simply disagree with them) are evil rather than in a state of disagreement.

Dwell on that for a minute

The solutions you find so blindingly self-evident are not the conclusions that others come to, and they are not ill-intentioned simply because they have the effrontery to come to a different conclusion.

Ugh, give it a rest. This garbage needs to end. There is NO REASON that the US government needs all of this information. NONE. And not only are they taking it, but they're distributing it around the world?

On the contrary, there are very, very good reasons why we would collect FISA information. For example, if we were not allowed to ever justify collection on US entities, we would be unable to protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure (such as, for example, air-traffic control and nuclear power plants) from cyber attacks. There are also excellent reasons for us to share information with other nations. For example, if we were unable to share information with other nations, we would be severely hindered in our efforts to track the most violent of the cartels, who operate both within and outside CONUS.

This is loathsome, and what's worse is that you defend it.

Remember that part earlier about how you accusing those with whom you disagree of being evil makes you look childish and uninformed more than it makes them look evil?

You're better than that, Phatz.

I'd rather trade goods with them rather than teaming up on invading and toppling other nations myself.

These are our allies. We do trade goods with them. We also collect on them and they on us, as otherwise our national decision-making is less informed and therefore more dangerous.

Guess I'm just some crazy idealist, though.

Nope, just an relatively uninformed national security hypochondriac who (as most folks do) probably means well.

 

[phattonez]

hey, remember this part?



Dwell on that for a minute

The solutions you find so blindingly self-evident are not the conclusions that others come to, and they are not ill-intentioned simply because they have the effrontery to come to a different conclusion.

The conclusions are obvious to any who's intellectually honest.

[quote[On the contrary, there are very, very good reasons why we would collect FISA information. For example, if we were not allowed to ever justify collection on US entities, we would be unable to protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure (such as, for example, air-traffic control and nuclear power plants) from cyber attacks. There are also excellent reasons for us to share information with other nations. For example, if we were unable to share information with other nations, we would be severely hindered in our efforts to track the most violent of the cartels, who operate both within and outside CONUS.[/quote]

Therefore we need information on every American and every call that they make. No, warrants aren't good enough anymore. Give it a rest already!

Remember that part earlier about how you accusing those with whom you disagree of being evil makes you look childish and uninformed more than it makes them look evil?

You're better than that, Phatz.

Defending everything that the military does, especially warrantless wiretaps and the demolition of the 4th amendment, is pretty tough to call anything but evil.

Seriously, can you criticize anything that the military has done?

These are our allies. We do trade goods with them. We also collect on them and they on us, as otherwise our national decision-making is less informed and therefore more dangerous.

There's a reason that the US is beligerent toward Iran and not Saudi Arabia, or is Saudi Arabia a-okay with you?

Nope, just an relatively uninformed national security hypochondriac who (as most folks do) probably means well.

I'll remember not to question the almight cpwill next time. He knows everything about security so us minions shouldn't question him. Do you even listen to yourself?

 

[cpwill]

The conclusions are obvious to any who's intellectually honest.

Yeah. That's what Islamist terrorists think, too. The idea that one must be evil or lying to believe differently is a fantastic way to dehumanize the otherside and justify whatever idiotic method of of opposition you come up with.

However the number of intellectually honest people who come to different conclusions rather belies the claim, which is why those who make it are so often relegated to any consensual societies' extremes, little respected and (until they turn violent) largely ignored.

Therefore we need information on every American and every call that they make. No, warrants aren't good enough anymore. Give it a rest already!

Hey look!

A Strawman!

You stated that there was NO reason to collect FISA data or share it with other states. I gave you merely two of several very good reasons to do so. When you are able to either refute those instances or admit that your earlier blanket denial was in error, let me know. Either will require more thought or maturity than you have thus far (sadly) demonstrated in discussing this topic.

Defending everything that the military does, especially warrantless wiretaps and the demolition of the 4th amendment, is pretty tough to call anything but evil.

1. I don't defend everything that the military does.
2. The military does not do warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. That would be a EO1233 violation, and those who did so would go to jail. I have actually seen military personnel, in fact, go to jail precisely for using their training and assets to collect on an AMCIT (in this case a SSgt who caught his wife cheating on him).
3. Calling your opposition evil because they disagree with you remains a childish and frankly totalitarian tactic. That form of dehumanization has a long, sordid, abusive history.

Seriously, can you criticize anything that the military has done?

Yup. The decision to send home the Iraqi Army with their weapons was atrocious. The decision to let the Shia run wild after the push through Badghdad was incredibly costly. The laxity with which we handled sexual assault complaints in the late 20th century was atrocious and abusive towards our fellow Marines, soldiers, sailers, and airmen. Military leadership is often needlessly timid and willing to abandon their own because of command pressure, political pressure, or the desire to fit in well in Washington. The decision to allow deployed soldiers real-time access to social media has turned (whatever morale benefits) into an OPSEC nightmare, and it is only a matter of time before it costs lives. The military has been painfully slow to accept needed innovation, and that may very well have been responsible for us unnecessarily losing in Vietnam and possibly Afghanistan (and it almost lost Iraq). The military promotes its people by longevity (how long have you been in) at the bottom and middle, and by political connections (who do you know who will vouch for you) at the very top, thus encouraging an exodus of our top talent and the unwise needless promotion of many individuals of middling or sub-par ability beyond their capability to effectively perform. We have a healthcare/pension structure that is eating at our ability to provide a military capability to the nation at cost. The decision to start integrating women into combat units such as the infantry is a political one that is going to have deadly consequences for our young people on the back end.... and our leadership probably either doesn't care, or would care, but feels they have to do so in order to "get along", and so they pretend to themselves that it won't be a problem.

There is a reason why strips such as Terminal Lance are wildly popular within the military ranks. We are plenty self-critical of the idiocies that come along with working in a branch of the Federal Government.

There's a reason that the US is beligerent toward Iran and not Saudi Arabia, or is Saudi Arabia a-okay with you?

Depends on how you mean A-Okay. Saudi Arabia isn't attempting to shove us out of the Persian Gulf in order to enforce regional hegemony and threaten our economy at will to force geopolitical concessions from us. Saudi Arabia is, however, an incredibly abusive and corrupt regime. Iran is a deliberate state backer of terrorists and paramilitary/covert groups that have killed thousands of Americans, Saudi Arabia is a fitful and sometimes ineffective pursuer of those same groups.

Saudi Arabia is a corrupt kingdom. However, its interest align more with ours and it is a partner nation in trying to maintain stability in the worlds least-stable center of gravity.

I'll remember not to question the almight cpwill next time. He knows everything about security so us minions shouldn't question him. Do you even listen to yourself?

Dude. Have you been paying attention to the hysterics you've brought in here? You're the equivalent of a guy claiming imminent collapse of the global economy who in the next breath offers as an aside that bond prices and yields move together rather than in opposite directions - making Very Very Very Obvious Errors that demonstrate that your analysis isn't fed by anything but groupthink and paranoia. I'm no genius, but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out things like "hey, maybe people who disagree with me think that they are in the right, too."

 

[phattonez]

Yeah. That's what Islamist terrorists think, too. The idea that one must be evil or lying to believe differently is a fantastic way to dehumanize the otherside and justify whatever idiotic method of of opposition you come up with.

However the number of intellectually honest people who come to different conclusions rather belies the claim, which is why those who make it are so often relegated to any consensual societies' extremes, little respected and (until they turn violent) largely ignored.

Tell me who, among the intellectually honest, still supports giving foreign aid to Egypt?

Hey look!

A Strawman!

You stated that there was NO reason to collect FISA data or share it with other states. I gave you merely two of several very good reasons to do so. When you are able to either refute those instances or admit that your earlier blanket denial was in error, let me know. Either will require more thought or maturity than you have thus far (sadly) demonstrated in discussing this topic.

You have not made the case why everyone needs to be spied upon and why warrants based on reasonable suspicion are too much to ask.

1. I don't defend everything that the military does.
2. The military does not do warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. That would be a EO1233 violation, and those who did so would go to jail. I have actually seen military personnel, in fact, go to jail precisely for using their training and assets to collect on an AMCIT (in this case a SSgt who caught his wife cheating on him).
3. Calling your opposition evil because they disagree with you remains a childish and frankly totalitarian tactic. That form of dehumanization has a long, sordid, abusive history.

Criticize something that the military has done, and make it substantial. Come on, I beg of you.

Yup. The decision to send home the Iraqi Army with their weapons was atrocious. The decision to let the Shia run wild after the push through Badghdad was incredibly costly. The laxity with which we handled sexual assault complaints in the late 20th century was atrocious and abusive towards our fellow Marines, soldiers, sailers, and airmen. Military leadership is often needlessly timid and willing to abandon their own because of command pressure, political pressure, or the desire to fit in well in Washington. The decision to allow deployed soldiers real-time access to social media has turned (whatever morale benefits) into an OPSEC nightmare, and it is only a matter of time before it costs lives. The military has been painfully slow to accept needed innovation, and that may very well have been responsible for us unnecessarily losing in Vietnam and possibly Afghanistan (and it almost lost Iraq). The military promotes its people by longevity (how long have you been in) at the bottom and middle, and by political connections (who do you know who will vouch for you) at the very top, thus encouraging an exodus of our top talent and the unwise needless promotion of many individuals of middling or sub-par ability beyond their capability to effectively perform. We have a healthcare/pension structure that is eating at our ability to provide a military capability to the nation at cost. The decision to start integrating women into combat units such as the infantry is a political one that is going to have deadly consequences for our young people on the back end.... and our leadership probably either doesn't care, or would care, but feels they have to do so in order to "get along", and so they pretend to themselves that it won't be a problem.

There is a reason why strips such as Terminal Lance are wildly popular within the military ranks. We are plenty self-critical of the idiocies that come along with working in a branch of the Federal Government.

Yawn, like I thought, technical criticisms and issues with the bureaucracy. I figured you wouldn't criticize something like the use of Agent Orange, the bombing of innocent civilians during WWII, the use of drones to kill innocent civilians, or any abhorrent practice.

Depends on how you mean A-Okay. Saudi Arabia isn't attempting to shove us out of the Persian Gulf in order to enforce regional hegemony and threaten our economy at will to force geopolitical concessions from us. Saudi Arabia is, however, an incredibly abusive and corrupt regime. Iran is a deliberate state backer of terrorists and paramilitary/covert groups that have killed thousands of Americans, Saudi Arabia is a fitful and sometimes ineffective pursuer of those same groups.

Saudi Arabia is a corrupt kingdom. However, its interest align more with ours and it is a partner nation in trying to maintain stability in the worlds least-stable center of gravity.

We get their oil, so anything that they do gets a pass from us. Yet, take a look at how we have had sanctions against Iran and Iraq. Look at how the US installs dictators across the globe who are friendly to trade with the US. Trade prevents wars. If goods aren't crossing borders, armies will.

Dude. Have you been paying attention to the hysterics you've brought in here? You're the equivalent of a guy claiming imminent collapse of the global economy who in the next breath offers as an aside that bond prices and yields move together rather than in opposite directions - making Very Very Very Obvious Errors that demonstrate that your analysis isn't fed by anything but groupthink and paranoia. I'm no genius, but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out things like "hey, maybe people who disagree with me think that they are in the right, too."

Except you're not in the right and you've made no coherent case as to why all Americans should be spied upon. Most people are extremely uncomfortable with it, yet you defend it as necessary. Is it just that you trust the US government, because I assure you that if this was some foreign dictator you'd have major problems with the policy.