Skip to main content

Greenwald lied (or did not ask an IT expert) when he claimed that the NSA can tap into the servers of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc: http://thedailybanter.com/...

The "servers" the slides are referring to are FTP servers that those service providers use to place log files when the NSA asks for data approved by the FISA courts.

For those of you who are against the secrecy of FISA or are big Greenwald fans will surely say the NSA is still evil and Obama is worse than Bush. Have at it.

But this is Greenwald's game that he played @ Salon and has now played @ The Guardian: He lets his personal agenda and hyberole take over and in this case, simply released stolen material without putting any context around it.

Read at the bottom UPDATE on the story where even The Guardian now finally admits that Greenwald screwed up: http://thedailybanter.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Snowden is lying (11+ / 0-)

    according to this article.

    The NSA leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged Thursday.
    "He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."
    http://thehill.com/...
  •  Good luck with this one. (37+ / 0-)

    This story is being driven around by pure emotion here and the last thing most of these guys want to hear is some techie explanation that reveals we aren't really in the final stages of totalitarianism takeover.

    I appreciate the info though.

    If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

    by ord avg guy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:24:14 PM PDT

  •  which is why Snowden is the subject (18+ / 0-)

    of an international manhunt, because there's nothing to see here.

    Defending the theft of our freedom by the government is not a legitimate difference of opinion on a political matter -- it is a deeply un-American attitude that deserves nothing but scorn and derision.--Dallasdoc

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:29:06 PM PDT

  •  I don't trust Greenwald (13+ / 0-)

    Others don't trust President Obama.

    Snowden is not someone any of us should trust. We know so little about him.

  •  He got one fact wrong (11+ / 0-)

    so disregard the whole story?

    And the servers the NSA directly accesses are still Facebook servers, they just aren't the main servers.  I'm sure this is to prevent the NSA from fucking up operations, not to protect anybody's privacy.

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:30:27 PM PDT

    •  Accidentally, that is. (5+ / 0-)

      To prevent the NSA from accidentally fucking up operations.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right, and until we know which information that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ashaman, kurt, deep info

      the companies hold has been made accessible to the government by ftp and which information has not been made accessible, it's a meaningless distinction.

    •  Actually, yes (6+ / 0-)

      There is a very clear distinction between the actual servers at any of these places and anything outside them.  The actual servers contain an immense amount of uncontrolled information.  Were the NSA reading them, there would be a significant threat of the agency trolling through data to which they should have no access, warrant or no.  The presence of a secondary server to which information is uploaded in response to a warrant is very different -- the NSA might still be getting information they shouldn't be getting, but there's an explicit warrant describing that information to the various private entities.

      •  FINALLY THE CORRECT ANSWER (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tony Situ, Sylv

        Anyone who does this routinely knows that this is a HUGE distinction.  
        Sending files voluntarily means you are controlling WHAT info. you are sending.  
        It is quantifiable, documented and CONTROLLED.
        Anyone who doesn't understand this distinction... you cannot be helped.

        •  Not correct (4+ / 0-)

          The files are not SENT voluntarily.

          I suggest you try and understand Section 702.

          •  Dude.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYFM

            In this case, give it a rest.  The techies are right here: it really does matter what kind of direct access is being provided under 702.  It's the difference between having a reader card in the National Archives and having access to a list of the contents: you can find out a lot from the metadata about who sent letters to whom, but it's not the same as knowing the contents of those letters.  From a series of letters between Mr. A and Mrs. B, we can tell that they were playing an important role in each other's lives, but we can't tell if they were having a torrid affair or were writing pointed letters to one another about a boundary dispute.  It gives us a reason to look more closely, but it doesn't answer the question.

            In this case, the NSA has access to the card catalog, but not the original documents.  Whether that access is too much in itself is still an open question -- but it's a very different question from what was alleged initially.

    •  "Kill the messenger" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, deep info

      Step 1 in how the defend the indefensible.

      Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

      by The Dead Man on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just one fact? (6+ / 0-)

      Well, that fact happens to be the entire premise of Greenwald's argument the NSA has DIRECT ACCESS to your Internet activity.

      Even The Guardian has to now acknowledge the loose way that their hero Greenwald plays with "facts" to push his agenda:

      UPDATE: A new article posted at the Guardian by Charles Arthur and Dominic Rushe walked back the “direct access” claim made in Greenwald’s original article and confirmed the FTP/Dropbox theory.

      The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.

    •  They do not have direct access to servers. (7+ / 0-)

      They are completely dependent on those companies to to access the information.They cannot just help themselves to any data they want, at any time they want as was implied in the initial stories.

      That is a big difference to some people.

      There is no need to repeat falsehoods. The issue just becomes more obscured when we insist on protecting false information. That is the kind of tactic we are supposed to be fighting against.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:27:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clapper and Co wouldn't mislead us twice, right? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." President Barack Obama

        by quagmiremonkey on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:48:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it's all a conspiracy btwn NSA and tech corps (0+ / 0-)

          Of course no one has actually been able to document an actual misuse of the program, but we can still feel free to engage in precog concern anyway!

          Again, truth matters. If we waste this opportunity repeating falsehoods and unproven assertions of conspiratorial behavior it will be our own fault.

          I fear this is all going to lead to more attempts to regulate the internet as people are going to start warning about the coming wave of untrustworthy leakers.

          Those that want to see repeal and reform efforts cannot hold others accountable if we do not hold ourselves accountable.

          The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

          by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Document a misuse? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info, Lost and Found

            You're joking right? How long have you known about it?

            Who precisely can "document a misuse?"

            Hell, for that matter, did anyone one ever document a "misuse" of warrantless wiretapping by Bush?  No right? Well that was ok then?

            •  A day or two before the leak, I think (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ranger995, deep info

              http://ccdcoe.org/...

              It's unfortunate that the remarks weren't published. I hope they will be. I've heard they were absolutely fascinating.

              http://www.vm.ee/...

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:47:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No crime committed. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ

              I know that you understand that there is a court order in this instance as well as congressional oversight. Big difference than what went on with Bush.

              We both know that there was no illegality "exposed" here.
              And spare me the discursive maneuvers, I know you are perfectly capable of staying on point.

              If we do not cease with the hyperbole and falsehoods we will waste an opportunity to address the real problems.

              So blast away Armando. I'm bored with ya.

              Be well!

              The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

              by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 10:22:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The court itself committed a crime. (0+ / 0-)

                The so-called FISA court order revealed by the Guardian -- go read it -- is a "general warrant" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Look up the 4th amendment on Wikipedia and learn something about "general warrants".  

                The court order also contains an unconstitutional gag order in violation of the First Amendment.

                AND the court order was illegally marked as "top secret" in violation of classification law.

                If you apologists persist with excusing the inexcusable we will waste an opportunity to address the real problems.

              •  Under Section 702? (0+ / 0-)

                No I do not understand there is a court order.

                As for the Section 215 order, it is a shocking order no?

                Look, I am sorry, but the inability to grasp Section 702 seems to be the heart of your misunderstanding.

  •  So is Rep Loretta Sanchez (15+ / 0-)

    a liar when she says the truth is way worse than we have already been told?

    Your distaste for Glenn Greenwald makes you read the Guardians update in a very odd way, but, luckily, this is America, you have the freedom to enjoy being spied on by the government as much as is politically expedient for your beliefs. Enjoy.

    •  No, she's not a liar. She's giving her own (0+ / 0-)

      impressions on the matter.  It remains to be seen if everyone agrees with her that there is worse than we've been told.   But she never verified Greenwald's now debunked "direct server access" claim, so her statements, true or not, are not relevant to Greenwald's tall tale.

      Hell, The Guardian itself already walked back Greenwald's "direct server access" claim, and you still insist on defending that claim?  What on earth for?

      Let's list the falsehoods of Snoweden/Greenwald we know so far:
      1. Snowden claimed he made $200k a year when he really only made $120k per year.
      2. Snowden/Greenwald claimed that NSA had direct access to tech companies' main servers so NSA could freely access anyone's accounts (email, cloud storage, etc) they wanted at any time they wanted.  It turns out that NSA only had access to FTP servers created for the purpose of depositing FISA court ordered data.  That is a monumental difference, and if you can't understand that, then there's no getting through to you.
      3. Snowden claimed that he had "authorization" to wiretap the president.  That's been shown to be a lie now.
      4. Snowden claimed he could name every CIA agent, their locations, and their missions.  Another now debunked lie.
      5. Snowden claimed that NSA could "watch your thoughts as they form".  A lie dependent on the lie in item 2.

      All we have from Snowden is a PowerPoint slide confirming the existence of PRISM, but we now know that PRISM isn't what he claimed it was.  It's the program under which tech companies deposit FISA court ordered data onto FTP servers that NSA accesses, not the "NSA has direct access to the main servers" bull.  And we know that Snowden disclosed a FISA court issued warrant for particular info.  Maybe yo u disagree with that court issued warrant, but the fact that it was issued by a court means that the talk of "fascist tyrannical police state" was vastly overstated.

      Now, Greenwald claims that he will be reporting more stuff, and he claims that he's holding things back that Snowden gave him, because Greenwald thinks disclosing those things would undermine national security or cause harm to particular people.  Maybe that is true, or at least Greenwald thinks it's true.  We'll see on that.  But the underlying core of Greenwald's reporting so far has been shown to be false, the Guardian walked it back, and everyone here knows that Greenwald is not an objective reporter.  Even his supporters know that he's not a straight objective reporter, he has an agenda.

      •  Wrong. The NSA has direct access. (0+ / 0-)

        Not to Google data centers.

        To Time Warner / AT&T / Cablevision / Verizon / etc.  Look up the whistleblower who reported on installing the tap at the AT&T switching center.  That's the way they "watch your thoughts as you type" (which is hyberbole, it takes seconds to get to the NSA servers).

        Pay attention and connect the dots.  Snowden is only whistleblower number six or seven, I think.  It's all adding up to a big picture -- I understand why some people get confused about details.

  •  Greenwald functioned as a reporter. (18+ / 0-)

    One can agree of diagree about NSA actions, or Snowden's choice to disclose classified information, but I see no reason to personally attack Greenwald.  If he was wrong in something he said, far better to show it.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:36:48 PM PDT

    •  Greenwald is a reporter with an agenda. That is (7+ / 0-)

      not even open to debate. This makes his 'reporting' questionable at any given time. That's what's sad about all this - if it had been someone else I'd be a little more concerned about the events, but knowing it's Greenwald on top of the whole unknown backstory on Snowden - sorry, but the integrity was compromised from the get go.

      But hey if it gets people to finally wake up about privacy, fine - just as long as people show up for the midterms.

      If I knew it was going to be that kind of party, I'd have stuck my ---- in the mashed potatoes! - Paul's Boutique

      by DoctorWho on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:49:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As is every reporter (5+ / 0-)

        What you mean is that he is a reporter with an agenda you disagree with.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:01:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uhhh... I'm pretty sure not every reporter (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, Sylv

          in the world has an agenda.

          They might have their own point of view, their own politics, their own beliefs, but that does not mean every reporter in the world allows those things to set the agenda for their reporting.

          Non futuis apud Boston

          by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:41:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The WA Post reported the exact same story (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, TomP, deep info
        •  From the same source. (0+ / 0-)

          They didn't independently the "direct server access" claim, Snowden showed them the PowerPoint slide and he told them what it meant.  Turns out he was wrong (or lying).  The slide about PRISM didn't mean what he claimed it did.

          •  Actually the Post in standing by their "direct (0+ / 0-)

            access" claim:

            According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.
            This also lines up with what previous whistleblowers such as Mark Klein and William Binney have claimed. When you really read up on everything that has been written on NSA data collection over the years (not just the most recent revelations), Snowden's claims seem very credible, and the criticisms seem rather weak.
      •  The liberal media canard? (0+ / 0-)

        so what if Greenwald has an agenda.  Fox News & the rest of corporate media doesn't?

        Greenwald has always been up front about what got him into his reporting and column writing. To see this destroy the messenger a la Atwater/Ailes on this site is nauseating.

    •  The NSA will attack the messenger (6+ / 0-)

      And their lap-sitting compliant stenographers in the beltway press do their task with docile appreciation.

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:01:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No, he didn't lie (18+ / 0-)

    The NSA claims in its slide presentation that it has direct access to servers at nine Internet giants. Now go ahead, tell me the NSA lied, or their guy got the tech wrong, and they just get daily data dumps. I won't be surprised at either.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

  •  This void of any proof. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:01:23 PM PDT

    •  Read the story I linked to ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, Argyrios, Tony Situ

      ... Even The Guardian has to now acknowledge the loose way that their hero Greenwald plays with "facts" to push his agenda:

      UPDATE: A new article posted at the Guardian by Charles Arthur and Dominic Rushe walked back the “direct access” claim made in Greenwald’s original article and confirmed the FTP/Dropbox theory.

      The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.

      •  You're not telling the truth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        That is not what that says.

        •  Yes it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Argyrios, Tony Situ

          Allow a stupid techie to help you out ...

          The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system.

          Oh, wait for it , wait for it ... SECTION 702!!

      •  Read the stories I linked to (0+ / 0-)

        Here, just for you. Because the picture is different than your narrow focus suggests.

        I'd be interested in your remarks after you read what I linked.

        400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

        by koNko on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:55:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I ask you again... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Argyrios

          Tell me what view/position/narrow focus I have that you are trying to change with your links.

          You must know how i feel since you reference it twice. Please tell me what it is.

          And again, please point out where I was smearing someone based on their "factually based" opinion. I'm really curious. I've been accused of shit by a lot of folks over the last couple of days and every fucking time I ask for support for their accusation I get crickets. Maybe you'll break the streak.

           

          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

          by ord avg guy on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:20:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read and then respond. (0+ / 0-)

            You won't know what the articles contain unless you actually read them, after which I'm happy to discuss.

            You must know how i feel since you reference it twice. Please tell me what it is.

            And again, please point out where I was smearing someone based on their "factually based" opinion. I'm really curious. I've been accused of shit by a lot of folks over the last couple of days and every fucking time I ask for support for their accusation I get crickets. Maybe you'll break the streak

            .

            I haven't tried to psychoanalyze you here or project anything on your comments but curable ignorance, for which I have provided some medicine. The rest you are imagining.

            Perhaps you should push-back from the keyboard for awhile and cool-off.

            I have merely linked some articles you can read to broaden your understanding, but if you don't care to, fine, we can consider the topic closed.

            400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

            by koNko on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 09:18:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Glenn Greenwald's Epic Botch-The Nation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee, doroma, Argyrios

    Published this am by Rick Perlstein
    This piece goes through all of the tech jargon and explains the misinterpretation etc... but
    The last paragraph is key

    Such distraction campaigns are how power does its dirtiest work. Think of the way the questions about the authenticity of the “Killian documents” were able to obscure the fact that George W. Bush actually did go AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard or how the unrelated or how the unrelated killing of a CIA station chief in Greece was used to discredit the congressional investigations of CIA wrongdoing in 1975—cases with which Greenwald should be well-familiar. So, Glenn Greenwald, what’s the word? The fate of our civil liberties may depend on it.
    •  That's not the key (7+ / 0-)

      to that piece at all. All Perlstein is saying is that Greenwald should admit to his error so that this can't be used to distract from the actual points he got right.

    •  The last paragraph says that Greenwald should (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ballerina X

      admit his mistake, because if he does not, then it'll be easy to discredit anything else he has to say.

      But the preceding paragraphs are important too.
      For instance, the difference between what Greenwald claimed PRISM is and what it really is:

      The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”
      Personally, I think the arcticle you cite is too generous to Greenwald. I've read Greenwald in the past, and know that he's an expert at selective omissions and technically true but misleading statements in order to leave an impression that furthers his own agenda.  He says "direct access to servers", which is technically true because NSA has access to the FTP servers serving as the dropbox for FISA requested data, but Greenwald intentionally invites the reader to imagine that the servers are the main servers that customers interact with.  But then again, maybe Greenwald was indeed merely misinterpreting the slide, rather than being too-clever-by-half by reporting something technically true but grossly misleading.
      •  NSA still has direct access to routers: Mark Klein (0+ / 0-)

        exposed that piece of illegal, warrantless, 4th amendment violation a while back.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/...

        As a result, it doesn't really matter that Google is fighting release of data from their servers.

        People are getting confused because the NSA has so many different illegal programs for spying on Americans.  Greenwald may be confused by this too, but he knows damn well that the NSA is hoovering up all Internet traffic, unconstitutionally.  And he's right.

  •  OK, so you don't like Glenn Greenwald (5+ / 0-)

    Congratulations. But how can you seriously make the argument that the story is wrong?

    Remember, this was not published on Greenwald's blog but by two major newspapers. People at The Guardian were vetting what he published and would have objected if he tried to slant or distort the story (this is the same paper that has harshly criticized Julian Assange). And the same story was published simultaneously by The Washington Post without any of Greenwald's involvement at all.

    All the story consisted of was the contents of the leaked Powerpoint slides, which the government has confirmed are real. The papers tried to get the tech companies to comment for the original story, but they didn't respond, and it would be wrong for a paper to sit on a story like this while being stonewalled.

    The only dispute here is a small technical difference in how the data is collected. That process could be automated and essentially the same as "direct access" when it comes to accessing data.

    •  I wouldn't trust newspapers that much. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aitchdee, doroma, Argyrios

      They don't have fact checkers.

      Not sure how much "vetting" they can do, short of fact checking it.

      (Especially when it was sourced from a single person.)

      •  So you trust the government, and the tech (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        companies, but not newspapers and journalists?

        •  NYT pushed us into the Iraq War based on lies, (0+ / 0-)

          Google, Microsoft, and Apple didn't.  Why should I trust NYT over those companies?  And WaPo is a joke, and the Guardian is a sensationalist left wing rag (which counters the UK's Telegraph, a sensationalist right wing rag).  I'm surprised that they actually walked back Greenwald's reporting.  If even the Guardian felt the need to walk it back, then we know that it was very much wrong.

          •  Oh I see, it was the NYT that was responsible (0+ / 0-)

            for the Iraq War, not the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex, of which the NSA is a faction.

            Why are you even bringing up the NYT when it has nothing to do with this story?

            And really, the Guardian is a "sensationalist left wing rag" comparable to the Telegraph? LOL

    •  Greenwald claims the NSA has access to ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, Argyrios, Tony Situ

      ... everyone's Internet activity via service provider servers, which he claims during his victory lap news program appearances.

      However, the "server" that the NSA has access to is NOT the Web servers from these providers. It is an FTP server that is used to transfer logs when they are requested by the NSA under court order from the FISA courts.

      Greenwald is wrong. The NSA was NOT referring to the provider's primary servers.

      •  The NSA claims it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ukit, deep info

        You keep following the "direct access" red herring.

        You just do not understand the story.

        •  The story? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fou, Argyrios, Tony Situ

          Oh, so ignore that "red herring" that the NSA does NOT have direct access and ... well, that little tale about the NSA having access to everyone's activity is, how do you say it? Help me, because I am soooo ignorant ... INCORRECT?

          •  Proving yet again you really don't (7+ / 0-)

            understand the story.

            The NSA has compete access via providers bringing data to servers that the NSA does have direct access to.

            It happens when the NSA requests it pursuant to Section 702.

            Section 702 requests need only be cetfieid by the AG and the DNI, and after a week, the FISA court approves minimization procedures or orders them modified.

            THe NSA has 30 days to modifiy the minimization procedures all the while surveilling content.

            For 37 days, without court approved minimization procedures (which are most likely a joke in the first place, see Verizon order) the NSA has access to all content it requests from providers.

            That is the REAL story. Get it yet?

            •  LMAO (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ

              oh god.. I apologize for my comment below then.  I thought you were still standing by your Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT/Section 702 of the FISA argument to try and undermine the overall legality of this based solely on what you've read in the press or heard from the infallible Mr. Greenwald.

              I had no idea you were trying to make an argument about the dastardly 37 day window related to minimization.

              wow.,. I mean, yeah.. I "get" the story now.  The REAL one.  

              There is definitely "most likely a joke here" but I don't think I need to re-read the Verizon order to see it.

              Please keep posting.  Other people need to follow these delicious breadcrumbs to see the "REAL" counter-argument here.  

              You should diary this more thoroughly.  Skip the Section 215 4th amendment adherence bit... go straight to this.

              Please.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:12:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're wrong Armando. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Argyrios, Tony Situ

              I appreciated your other diary for its thoroughness, but I disagreed with its assumptions.

              The NSA has direct access only to what these companies upload via FTP. The claim that they have direct, real time access is completely bogus. The claim they have direct access via FTP is like claiming I have direct access to your bank account when and because you transfer money into mine.

              •  Direct access was expressly not my assumption (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deep info

                So what was I wrong about?

                I'm sorry but you reading of my diary was not thorough.

                Indeed, consider your comment here. You write:

                "The NSA has direct access only to what these companies upload via FTP."

                And what do you think that is? Everything the nsa requests, per Section 702.

                You write "The claim they have direct access via FTP is like claiming I have direct access to your bank account when and because you transfer money into mine."

                No the claim is I have direct access to whatever you have in your bank acct because I have the power to compel you to transfer everything you have into my account.

                See I wrote about this in my post. Almost in these terms.

                Now do I know this is happening? Not directly But the reporting and the statements from the DNI (I relied not at all on Greenwald) indicate that this is precisely what is happening.

      •  Actually all we know is that there is a (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, Garrett, deep info

        discrepancy between what the NSA's own Powerpoint says, and what the tech companies claim is true. Greenwald is neither here nor there in all this. And the government has hardly offered a clear explanation of how the process works.

        But really this is completely beside the point. What you are focusing on is how the information is transmitted, rather than the scope and intrusiveness of the information gathering, which is what most people care about.

    •  Becaue these people do not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ukit, deep info

      want to understand the story.

  •  Not Sure (4+ / 0-)

    He reported the content of a leak.

    The leak was not comprehensive, nor -- I suspect -- was it entirely accurate. From what reporting is out there, I find it hard to believe that someone in Snowden's role was credibly informed about the nature of cooperation between these Internet companies and the Federal government.

    As far as "releasing stolen content," there is established journalistic precedence for this when the material is in the public interest, which I hope we can all agree that it is.

    And I think that the public has benefitted from the disclosure. Now there have been (closed) hearings in Congress about the nature of domestic surveillance by the NSA. In addition, a bill is in the Senate asking for the court rulings around FISA to be declassified so that the public has a better understanding, contextually, of what is going on.

    I think Mr. Greenwald and the Washington Post staff who reported on the leak did us all a great service.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

    •  Greenwald was predisposed to believe the worst (0+ / 0-)

      interpretation of the leak, I think everyone here, including Greenwald's fans, can admit that.  He may have even suspected that that interpretation was inaccurate, but just so wanted to believe it, that he went with it.  Then again, maybe he was taken in by Snowden, or maybe Snowden himself didn't know what the hell he was looking at.

  •  Betrayl of complete misunderstanding of this story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found

    Techies have no idea what this story is about.

    •  BTW (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mk3872, Red Bean, eltee, DeadHead, deep info

      This is not a denial or "walkback"

      The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.
      The funny thing is none of you "techie" geniuses apparently believe Clapper.
      •  re-qualifying "direct access" to dropbox (4+ / 0-)

        is not a walk back?  You are cute as a fucking button sometimes.

        Talk to your IT Staff Armando.

        Hey btw... I have "direct access" to Microsoft too then.  shhh... don't tell anyone though.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:03:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not every techie is stupid about this (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, Armando, Wisper, deep info

        And journalists are often hilariously non-technical for reasons that only God knows. To them a server is a server, whether it's a CT server or a FTP server.

        For techies familiar with telephony, the story has long legs. Phone companies routinely spit out data to their corporate customers...it's part of what companies pay for when they contract with a carrier for their PBXs. Sometimes it gets ftp'd or ssh'd or sent via DVD/CD. Similiarly, PBXs have built-in mechanisms to spit out call data, usually to some sort of text file. The last thing you want or need is to have anyone having direct access to the database that sits behind all this. With telephony, everything is about speed. A typical time-out in the programming world might be 10 or 30 seconds. In the telephony world, a latency over 3 ms is considered too long. Direct access to the system would cause latency and it would just be stupid because the data would have changed 10 times in the time you took just to get to it.

        So..very few folks anywhere have DIRECT access to the systems that generate this call data because it's not practical. However, these systems spit out data on a regular basis (every second, or minute, or hour, depending on traffic and/or settings) and that practice is an industry standard.

        Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter whether Greenwald thinks an FTP server is part of Verizon's system or not. A so-called "techie" dissing the whole story because he thinks Greenwald doesn't know what a server is is irony at best and deliberate misdirection at worst.

        •  That's interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          Obviously I can't speak to what you write as I admit to having no knowledge in the field.

          For the reasons I have stated, I did not think it an important part of this story.

          But if what you write is correct, then it does point to misdirection or lack of knowledge on the point by the techs criticizing Greenwald.

        •  Two things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, NYFM

          1.  Why would anyone want direct access to the senseless raw switch data?  I think it's safe to say its definitely the database, most likely Oracle on systems this large, that has all the call metadata and transaction logs.  So the Dropbox server is still limited to packaged metadata which is what we've known the government has been monitoring since 2002.  

          2.  There is one MAJOR point here though.  That output file, however many fields it contains, is NOT in anyway the same as the pearl-clutching outrage machine is carelessly speculating as "the EBIL gubmint has access to listen in to all our calls!!!1!!"  THAT'S what many IT people have been consistently saying is nonsense.  

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 09:13:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  call meta data says a lot (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info, NYFM

            When it is matched up to all these other sources like facebook and gmail it says even more. The only way to make good matches is to sweep up everyone's data from all these sources. Where is the matched but innocent (ie non-terrorist) being kept? Who has access to it....now? Or after the next election?

            You are also assuming that it IS just a dropbox of metadata. Yet there have been quotes about using the metadata to fetch recordings in the past. How are those recordings being made? For and by whom?

            Google call recording software for call centers. The technology is mind blowing. They can record calls via the cloud and then analyze those records to determine a speaker's emotions.

            Too much over reach and too much risk of data misuse.

    •  So, what's the story "about", Armando? (0+ / 0-)

      You've said that three times in these comments.

      Is the story about whether the feds survey any data? Or is it the quantity of the data that's in question?

      Non futuis apud Boston

      by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:46:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i wrote a post about it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info
        •  Maybe I can fairly summarise that diary (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fou, Argyrios, Tony Situ, deep info

          as saying the scope of the data cannot possibly fall within the legal requirements?

          And if so, then is it unreasonable to suggest that (a) Greenwald has misrepresented that scope, and (b) understanding the technology would lead us to a better understanding of exactly how large that scope really is?

          Non futuis apud Boston

          by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:26:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kenlac, deep info

            I think the story used inaccurate info describing "direct access" but that was due to the inaccuracies of the NSA documents.

            On b no, the technology is not really germane, since the providers hand over info on request.

            •  On answer B... (5+ / 0-)

              it depends on what it's germane to. For a while there the popular belief was (and to a fair extent still is) that the NSA simply trawled ALL data, and had a direct access point from which to do so. Understanding the tech is germane to knowing that belief is inaccurate, but not germane to the point of whether we should still consider lesser surveillance proper, whether legally or ethically.

              On answer A, I think you are being too charitable to Greenwald, but that's subjective.

              In the end, the diarist is making charges against Greenwald. That may not be the most important "story" -- not the big picture story, if you will -- but it most certainly is a legitimate story to examine. It's perfectly possible for the surveillance to be inappropriate AND for Greenwald to be playing games at the same time.

              Non futuis apud Boston

              by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:18:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Hes harping on Section 702 (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, ord avg guy, Argyrios, Tony Situ, Sylv

        which he thinks can be used to show the FISA request violated Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT.  

        The "I wrote about it" comment is his reference to his long diary that lays out a grandiose legal argument that is all based on publicly reported facts at the very end he admits Clapper has stated on record are inaccurate but.. oh fuck it.. here's Armando's words:

        DNI Clapper has claimed that the reporting in PRISM is inaccurate. Perhaps so. But the government has lost all credibility on this matter. At this point they have to show us, or show someone we trust.
        So all of Armando's trademarked drive-by "you're an idiot/not a lawyer/not as smart as me" comments are based on his own "Perhaps so."  ....Legal Blogging at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.  Be sure to tune in to his radio show.

        Take it with a 50lb bag of salt.  He knows as much and as little as you do.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:40:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't take any of Greenwald's interpretations (10+ / 0-)

    as the factual last word on a subject.

    Using similar logic, I most certainly wouldn't take any of Bob Cesca's counter-interpretations of Greenwald's interpretations as a factual last word on a subject.

    I mean, G-damn... the ENTIRE problem with this site nowadays is everyone is hellbent on taking incomplete information that's been run through filters and cranking the emotional charge of it up to 11. And it's getting to the point where the only thing that differentiates one person from another is the filters they choose. It's like two opposing epistemic closure systems running in tandem.

    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:54:25 PM PDT

  •  ya know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep info

    My ghostery via firefox just blocked the following when I visited today

    chatBeat
    Facebook connect
    facebook social plugins
    googleadsence
    google ad conversion
    google analytics
    Mix Panel
    Quantalcast
    twitter button

    I cannot read or post at any comments that use disqus..

    I am stunned shocked and floored that we are being feed "discoveries" about the messenger...
    If this is no big deal.. or we already knew it..
    then cool...

    oh yeah fucking FREE BRADLEY MANNING..

    "You Can't close the door when the wall's caved in.."

  •  Smoke and mirrors (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found, deep info

     

    Emerging from a hearing with NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the senior Democrat on the panel, said Snowden simply wasn't in the position to access the content of the communications gathered under National Security Agency programs, as he's claimed.

    http://thehill.com/....

    Well that's interesting.   The La times reported earlier today that
    Former National Security Agency contract employee Edward Snowden used a computer thumb drive to smuggle highly classified documents out of an NSA facility in Hawaii, using a portable digital device supposedly barred inside the cyber spying agency, U.S. officials said.

        Investigators “know how many documents he downloaded and what server he took them from,” said one official who would not be named while speaking about the ongoing investigation.

    Snowden worked as a system administrator, a technical job that gave him wide access to NSA computer networks and presumably a keen understanding of how those networks are monitored for unauthorized downloads.

    But...

       

    "He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."
    And...

       

    The criticism from the Intel leaders took a turn toward the personal Thursday, as Rogers and Ruppersberger questioned how the 29-year-old Snowden, who never graduated from high school, could have risen to a position to access such sensitive information.

        "I hope that we don't decide that our national security interests are going to be determined by a high-school dropout who had a whole series of both academic troubles and employment troubles," Rogers said.

    But... the LA Times again:

       

    Officials said they still don’t know how Snowden got access to an order marked “Top Secret” from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or a highly-classified directive from President Obama authorizing a military target list for cyber attacks. Neither document would be widely shared, or normally available to a low-level NSA employee.
    Well, the above doesn't jive. Sorry Congressmen, but clearly Snowden was in the position to access highly classified directives and Top Secret documents of the FISA court. Examples have been published worldwide.

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:00:29 PM PDT

  •  Where is Greenwald? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    I've been waiting for the new revelations.

  •  NSA slide that tech experts say GG misinterpreted (6+ / 0-)
    Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

    The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

    Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blogg Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”...this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

    The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

    http://www.thenation.com/...

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:43:40 PM PDT

  •  Greenwald is not a credible person IMHO (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kenlac, NYFM, Lost and Found, Sylv, ord avg guy

    BUT the story you cite, where these corporations essentially set up side FTP servers at the bequest of the Government, hardly, hardly minimize the NSA issue in that we don't know what info they place there: it could be their entire server info, basically, FWIW. Even if it's just a portion of information, it was clear to me, upon reading the first reports, that it was exactly like is described here -- a sort of "mailbox."

    I think Glenn Greenwald has an agenda. And I can't stand him to save my life. But this is not about him. As much as perhaps he would like it to be. It is a very disturbing issue which vaguely does fit his narrative, so I see that he sort of capitalized on it. What else is new with Greenwald? Thus my assiduous and studied contempt for him.

    But that doesn't make what's being revealed here very consoling. It really doesn't. Sorry. It's still shady all around.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:56:33 PM PDT

    •  One of the most technically advanced (0+ / 0-)

      Entities on planet Earth with software stronger than what, by Federal Statute, you and I are allowed to possess... Is using FTP to download "entire servers"?

      Ever use FTP?  Ever read about how it works?  

      Added disclaimer to save Armando time in this diary:  Section 702. (stop) you are an idiot. (stop)

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:25:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rude reply. Not worth engaging with. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, Armando, Sylv

        Try rephrasing this civilly, and I will dignify it with a response.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:40:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, the disclaimer wasn't directed at you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv

          That's just Armando's parrot reply.  

          What I meant was that I don't know how familiar you are with the file transfer protocol.  It was invented in the 70s and wouldn't be what I used to transfer anything that big unless I absolutely had to due to technical limitations on the other end.   Maybe you are in IT and knew that already, I don't know.....

          If the NSA (which really does have things that it is illegal to use in the civilian marketplace) is using FTP in 2013 for something like this then were in more trouble then I thought.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:49:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Nation says that Greenwald's "mistake" makes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv

      a huge difference:
      Greenwald's Epic Botch?

      The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”
      If people want to discuss the NSA issue, they should want to do it on factual grounds, not based on fantasies invented and spread by Snowden/Greenwald.  If the NSA debate is going to be based on fantasies, then it's a waste of everyone's time.  And progressives risk discrediting their own argument if they refuse to distance themselves from fantasies or misinterpretations of reality.
      •  Read the FISA court order. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM

        Then read the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.  Then read some of the history behind it (Wikipedia has a reasonably good discussion of "general warrants").

        Then read the 1st Amendment.

        Now go back and read that court order.  You'll note that it's unconstitutional in multiple ways.

        You might want to read the legislation which the "court order" supposedly was based on.  The legislation authorizes the collection of "any tangible thing".  You may want to then look up the word "tangible".  Phone metadata is not tangible.

        Now go read General Clapper's statement to Wyden where he claimed that the NSA was not collecting information generically on all Americans.

        Clapper lied outright to a Senator on the Intelligence Committee in a Congressional hearing.

        About multiple constitutional and legal violations.

        The government is now trying to prosecute the person who revealed the crimes committed by Roger Vinson, Clapper, et al.

        If after you do that, you don't think this "issue" demands the imprisonment of Clapper et al, you aren't paying attention.

        •  Another alternative is (0+ / 0-)

          that your whole summation is based on not understanding the facts.

          I have neither the time nor the interest in tearing apart your whole comment. I will address your first point though.

          The fourth amendment does not protect anonymous cell phone routing data. You can read it as many times as you want but it, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, doesn't protect anonymous cell phone routing data. The Bill of Rights is intended, including the 4th, is intended to secure rights of the people. Anonymous cell phone routing data is not people. It is, regardless of what you think, in a tangible thing. You see, when these terms (like "tangible") are defined in a legal context, they are defined through debate and case law. You don't get to undo that by running to Websters.

          No amount of fear mongering, conspiracy theories or misinformation is going to change that.

          If you don't understand that, you and the horde of screaming chicken littles aren't paying attention.

          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

          by ord avg guy on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 07:36:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      For one of the more reasoned and thoughtful responses I've seen around here in a couple of days.

      If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

      by ord avg guy on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 07:55:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site