|
On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun!
Except there are records of surveillance operators having fun times listening to people having phone sex.
|
On June 26 2013 18:07 TheToaster wrote:
There's no doubt he's guilty of espionage. However, what he did can arguably be considered a noble cause despite committing a "crime against the US".
That would be my take on it as well.
Technically, you don't release national secrets like that. It may be warranted to do so, but if you do you have to be ready to face the consequences.
If Snowden was manly enough he would stop fleeing and surrender. Then he would be a badass an hero in my book.
|
On June 26 2013 18:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 17:35 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 17:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 17:01 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:17 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 16:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 16:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:01 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 15:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:[quote] The exceptions of freedom of speech are not restrictions on speech, they are unlawful acts covered by other laws of which the act of doing is against the law and has nothing to do with speech. For example, distributing child pornography, the unlawful act has nothing to do with the distribution or speech, it has to do with child pornography itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptionsNothing in here shows that Snowden did not have a right to do what he did. Prism does not protect society so much as it harms it, and is "a matter of public concern". What the US is basically saying is that even for people in Australia, we do not have a right to know whether the US government is spying on us, and not even the US citizens themselves. As far as I'm concerned the US has no business in looking at my emails or internet activity regardless of whether it is harmless or not. Look up non-disclosure agreements. Getting authorized to access top secret information requires one to sign one with the US Government. Yes and Snowden was authorized to access this information as an employee of the NSA. But not disclose any of the information to an unauthorized party. NDAs deal with dispersal of information, not access. I'm busy so I can't elaborate but that is the entire point of my first post  The NDA is more of a contract and less to do with constitutional rights. See case example, do you think a person who leaks government information to prevent a regime should also be thrown in jail because of the NDA? The whole point of freedom of speech is to prevent things like this. Only if the information he is revealing shows clearly that the government is committing illegal activities in accordance to law. The law can be challenged in court in accordance to the Constitution. If the information is just top secret information about lawful activities, then he's violating the NDA. If he sells the information to foreign sources, he's committing espionage. That's my entire point. The content should not be important, either we allow information to be leaked or we don't. Illegal is whatever the government makes it. A smart government would change the law in order so that it will never commit "illegal activities", which is exactly what its doing. e.g Guantanamo Bay, PATRIOT Act, etc. Legality is disputed in the courts and is checked against established law in relation to the Constitution. Also, it's not like the government is some towering singular monster that makes decisions. It's not "smart" or "stupid," it's made up by the people to serve the people. A glorious phrase, pity it is without substance. What you say is what the government should be, not what it is. Legality is disputed within the courts, unless the government thinks your a terrorist and then you go to Guantanamo Bay without trial. The government is a towering singular monster when it is persuaded by sponsor corporations and there is money to be made or lost. A government can definitely be smart or stupid. A leader is not without its people, just look at Syria for an example of a dumb government. Terrorism is a great excuse to garner the will of your people through a common enemy, while enacting selfish acts. Last I checked, Syria was a dictatorship. With a singular leader who has unlimited domestic power, it can act much more stupid (or smart) and singular than many other types of government. America is a republic, with regular elections to elect members of Congress and the President. Those elected are people, like you or I. They make decisions, like you or I would in their position. Believe it or not, many of them have beliefs not far from many of us and sometimes seek questionable means to an ultimate end, like most of us do. The many appendages of government are also made up of people, millions of them. Again, many not different from you or I. Guantanamo does not hold US citizens. It did so once by accident, but gave him back to Saudi Arabia upon learning this. (Of course, by now I realize that it doesn't matter to you since you believe the government is out to get you, and your little dog too! Unless government is made powerless to create and enforce laws, we will ALWAYS be in danger of Big Brother and having rats dig holes in our chests to prove that our resolve, even with love, is not stronger than the state!)
Well lets hope you go to Guantanamo Bay by accident as well. Also Prism affects non 'Murica citizens, everyone around the world is at risk.
Also your last phrase is just retarded.
Also your 2nd comment is invalid because, George Bush Jr.
|
When a democratic congressman says prism is the only the tip of the iceberg i would say you should be silent with those jokes
@ aksfjh
|
On June 26 2013 18:06 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:03 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 17:35 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 17:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 17:01 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:17 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 16:13 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 16:03 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 26 2013 16:01 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
Look up non-disclosure agreements. Getting authorized to access top secret information requires one to sign one with the US Government. Yes and Snowden was authorized to access this information as an employee of the NSA. But not disclose any of the information to an unauthorized party. NDAs deal with dispersal of information, not access. I'm busy so I can't elaborate but that is the entire point of my first post The NDA is more of a contract and less to do with constitutional rights. See case example, do you think a person who leaks government information to prevent a regime should also be thrown in jail because of the NDA? The whole point of freedom of speech is to prevent things like this. Only if the information he is revealing shows clearly that the government is committing illegal activities in accordance to law. The law can be challenged in court in accordance to the Constitution. If the information is just top secret information about lawful activities, then he's violating the NDA. If he sells the information to foreign sources, he's committing espionage. That's my entire point. The content should not be important, either we allow information to be leaked or we don't. Illegal is whatever the government makes it. A smart government would change the law in order so that it will never commit "illegal activities", which is exactly what its doing. e.g Guantanamo Bay, PATRIOT Act, etc. Legality is disputed in the courts and is checked against established law in relation to the Constitution. Also, it's not like the government is some towering singular monster that makes decisions. It's not "smart" or "stupid," it's made up by the people to serve the people. A glorious phrase, pity it is without substance. What you say is what the government should be, not what it is. Legality is disputed within the courts, unless the government thinks your a terrorist and then you go to Guantanamo Bay without trial. The government is a towering singular monster when it is persuaded by sponsor corporations and there is money to be made or lost. A government can definitely be smart or stupid. A leader is not without its people, just look at Syria for an example of a dumb government. Terrorism is a great excuse to garner the will of your people through a common enemy, while enacting selfish acts. Guantanamo does not hold US citizens. Oh well then its okay!
didnt you know? when you are not an american you are a subhuman with no rights whatsoever. thats because you live in lands with dragons and monsters and stuff.
|
On June 26 2013 18:28 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:07 TheToaster wrote:
There's no doubt he's guilty of espionage. However, what he did can arguably be considered a noble cause despite committing a "crime against the US". That would be my take on it as well. Technically, you don't release national secrets like that. It may be warranted to do so, but if you do you have to be ready to face the consequences. If Snowden was manly enough he would stop fleeing and surrender. Then he would be a badass an hero in my book.
and forgotten 1 week later when media is reporting about this new baby panda... get a grip really
|
NO, since when saying the true is espionage? and even more when his job consisted to spy others peaple.
World and even more America need more peaple like him, are we more in a democracy or a Corporatocracy? i'm sure it's 70% the second ! What he did is heroic, a civilian act.
Don't forget that Obama just followed the Bush actions. Guantanamo still exist WITH lot's of hidden cages now ! Prisons boats in international water for exemple. And the PATRIOT Act is more use now than with Bush.
Like said Hugo Chavez, "I can smell sulfur right here".
|
and he as person for the puplic is unimportant, media targeting him while the real problem is what he have made puplic lol
but most people are easy to delude by media
|
On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun!
So when evidence shows up proving this will you be shocked or will you say : "I don't know why people are surprised, everyone pretty much already knew this?"
|
If Snowden gets in-prisoned I don´t want to live on this planet anymore...
Topic: Yes, what he did was espionage, but are there really people who are saying that he did something bad?
|
On June 26 2013 18:41 Big-t wrote:
If Snowden gets in-prisoned I don´t want to live on this planet anymore...
Topic: Yes, what he did was espionage, but are there really people who are saying that he did something bad?
But the question is, what the us gouvernment demanded him to do? Espionage.
I think USA forgot to clean up his own back yard since native american.
|
Good to know I've been talking to a dolt this entire time, one that can't actually read apparently. I should probably take a break so you can sound out what I've written so far and maybe come up with actual arguments instead of repeating what you heard from watching too many YouTube videos about the government.
|
On June 26 2013 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:
The fact that Snowden is being charged with any crime at all means that, if he's caught, he'll rot for the next 60 years in a foreign prison without so much as a phone call.
The people who are extraordinarily (i.e., illegally) detained abroad indefinitely are the people who aren't formally charged with crimes and the people whose names don't end up in the news.
|
France9034 Posts
I wouldn't consider that espionage. He had his hands on the informations he made public. Just that this wasn't meant to be public. I wouldn't consider espionage non-authorized disclosure of confidential materials, but heh, that might be just a matter fo words.
Otherwise, I find it pretty funny that the US charged him with espionage. The irony is on an unreachable level...
On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so.
I understand you're totally right with basic privacy right violation, you have the right to decide anything in a democracy as long as > 50% of the people are okay with it. but us people who aren't US-citizen are also affected.
And we, non US-citizen, can't have a say in what the patriot act actually enables the US to do.
Snowden was right. But I doubt it'll change anything, thanks to :
1. The media that put so much focus on Snowden, compared to what he actually unveiled.
2. The governments around the globe, which for at least a few of them, have been found actually complying with this and even trading data with the NSA...
3. The people, who don't necessarily understand the impact/reach/implications of this, and don't really care (remember, they want to read about Snowden next country stop).
Snowden isn't a fucking spy, he's a fucking hero. And Orwell was a fucking visionary...
|
On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun!
Except it is pretty much a fact that NSA has a direct access to google, microsoft, facebook etc.. databases at this point. Not even the US government has tried to deny that.
|
On June 26 2013 17:15 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. Then answer, is the example person a hero or a spy, what do you think should happen to him? The exact same can be applied to what you just wrote. The example person is "putting the nations security at risk" by leaking classified information. Its a paradox, you are actually not basing your beliefs on logic, but emotional values. To me the only real threat that exists is the ability for the US to indict people for thought-crime through classified information that does not rightfully belong to the US government. The next thing is what the fuck are all these companies doing? I don't give a shit if this is about fighting terrorism, the way the government is going about "fighting terrorism" is not the way it should be done. The US signed the PATRIOT act, this act does not extend to every other country, what is this Prism thing doing searching through my emails? If Terrorism is a threat to your country, well that's your problem, I don't need your security so you can capture "threats to national security" like Julian Assange.
How is that a paradox? As I said before, he is most likely a spy. Of all the places to go, you DON'T go to Hong Kong(or more specifically China) and expect protection from the US(they have an extradition agreement). He had to have had something to bargain with, and that was leaking classified documents showing the US had spied on Chinese communications. Which ended up being a moot point, b/c the Chinese already knew that(they've been making claims for years, almost as much as the US has), which is why they sent him packing to Russia(which does not have an extradition agreement). This is the definition of espionage, giving a foreign entity classified government documents.
And stop treating Snowden like a hero or a whistleblower. He is NOT a whistleblower. It has been well documented in the public and in American Law that this kind of surveillance has been going on for YEARS. What Snowden leaked was the programs methods and capabilities, which is basically directly aiding terrorists in teaching them how to avoid identification.
Maybe you don't give a shit about terrorism, but I assure you most people in the world(russian, EU, UAE, India, Pakistan, China, Saudi, Africa, Middle East, North Africa) do. And more importantly, most Americans(who are btw the PEOPLE who are affected by NSA surveillance) care about terrorism and approve of what the NSA is doing domestically. As for hacking and china and crap, as a Chinese born person, I am neither surprised nor pissed that America is hacking China. China is a growing superpower and is trying to go tit for tat w/ the US. Hacking each other is just a part of that game, and if anything, is a compliment to China's growing power. You certainly would never see that kind of espionage on Australia.
|
On June 26 2013 18:40 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun! So when evidence shows up proving this will you be shocked or will you say : "I don't know why people are surprised, everyone pretty much already knew this?"
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/nsa-spying-verizon-analysis/65963/
Touche. It seems like an isolated incident (Iraq Green Zone), and we've known about warrantless wiretaps for some time. I'm not comfortable with some of the things that were described, but that's what the security "business" is all about.
Your claim of "streaming to their data center" isn't true though. There are traces you leave when you surf the internet. They can see where you go, as can most websites through cookies. Welcome to the 21st century.
|
On June 26 2013 18:57 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun! Except it is pretty much a fact that NSA has a direct access to google, microsoft, facebook etc.. databases at this point. Not even the US government has tried to deny that.
Google, Apple, Facebook, et al. have tried to deny that.
|
On June 26 2013 19:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:40 hypercube wrote:On June 26 2013 18:22 aksfjh wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 rhs408 wrote:On June 26 2013 17:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:On June 26 2013 16:53 czylu wrote:On June 26 2013 15:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail? Also would you still label the person a @#$%ing spy, or would he be a hero? Note that for both examples it is the exact same situation. Someone is leaking "government secrets" to the public, they should be treated the same. The content of the confidential information is not important. If you believe that the guy in the example above should not be put in jail, then Snowden should also not be put in jail. They have done the exact same thing, again the content of the leak should not be important, the result should be binary. Why is the content not important? We have a right to free speech without fear of persecution. It is binary, if we have rules governing free speech, then it is not free speech. What is happening in the US right now means that free speech no longer exists, we have to live in fear that if we say something the government doesn't like then we get indicted. Free speech means free speech. "free speech, except up to a certain level", that is not free speech. It would be no different from China, you can say whatever you want, just don't say anything bad about the government. What's the difference? Over the years the borders of our so called "free-speech" have been lowered and lowered in the West. Either we indict people for leaking government secrets, or we don't. One of which, I believe, will lead to a slippery slope. Our older generations died so you guys wouldn't get punished for thought crimes, and now you want to just throw that away. The trend is also not looking great, every year the government expands the morally grey area more and more. This effectively means that governments can do whatever they want and jail anyone for "leaking government secrets". And because some people blindly follow "the law" they let them get away with it. What's stopping the government from inventing new laws that keep pushing the boundaries of speech. People will just say "Oh but he broke the law", so its ok. In 1984, Winston also broke the law, so he must be the bad guy, it was wrong of him to question the regime at all, also all the people punished for thought crimes, they also broke the law, they deserve to be punished... Is that really what we want? Free speech needs to be practical and reasonable first and foremost. You can't yell fire in packed movie theater, people could die in the resulting panic. You can't say your company has record breaking profits, when it's bankrupt. Similarly, you can't reveal government classified documents that puts the nation's security at risk. Snowden did not reveal that america had been spying on electronic communications. We KNEW that since 2007, and was authorized by the PATRIOT act in 2001. What Snowden did was he revealed HOW and WHAT the NSA actually spied on, which severely damages the purpose of the NSA(which is protect the homeland). If the terrorists know what forms of communication are being tracked, they will inevitably NOT use those forms of communication. Ironically, b/c snowden has revealed these techniques to the general public(and by extension the terrorists), the program will inevitably need to expand to include communications that are not currently monitored. And the NSA will have the legal and constitutional right to do so. It's not about terrorism anymore, they're doing nation wide surveillance. Everything from phone calls to literally anything you do online. Unless they suspect all US citizens are terrorists.....which at this point I guess that's not too far fetched. It increasingly feels like the govt/major corporations view all citizens and consumers as enemies and vice versa. czylu is absolutely right. And I don't know why people care so much about the government having access to phone records. They aren't listening in on phone calls (unless you are being investigated as a terrorist?), it's just freaking phone records. But regardless, Snowden is nothing more than a traitor and I hope he rots in jail along with Bradley Manning. They ARE listening in on phone calls. And they have the ability to see anything you're doing while connected to the internet, as if you're streaming directly to their data center. They also have a giant laser shooting robot that is preparing to battle the rebels on the moon base that have created their own laser shooting skyscraper sized robot! I can make up things as well. That was pretty fun! So when evidence shows up proving this will you be shocked or will you say : "I don't know why people are surprised, everyone pretty much already knew this?" http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/nsa-spying-verizon-analysis/65963/Touche. It seems like an isolated incident (Iraq Green Zone), and we've known about warrantless wiretaps for some time. I'm not comfortable with some of the things that were described, but that's what the security "business" is all about. Your claim of "streaming to their data center" isn't true though. There are traces you leave when you surf the internet .They can see where you go, as can most websites through cookies. Welcome to the 21st century.
No  . It's as i said, they have the ability to see everything you do in real time on your pc if you're connected to the internet, essentially like a live stream. Whether you believe me or not, I don't particularly care. I'm sure it will eventually become completely public most everything they've been doing.
|
On June 26 2013 18:28 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:07 TheToaster wrote:
There's no doubt he's guilty of espionage. However, what he did can arguably be considered a noble cause despite committing a "crime against the US". That would be my take on it as well. Technically, you don't release national secrets like that. It may be warranted to do so, but if you do you have to be ready to face the consequences. If Snowden was manly enough he would stop fleeing and surrender. Then he would be a badass an hero in my book.
???
You can't be serious.
Hypothetically - if some North Korean warns the world about the nuclear bomb they're about to drop, in your eyes he should face North Korean court? Or a German back in the 30s releases information that might allow us to prevent concentration camps or at least act upon this knowledge - he'd ought to stop fleeing and surrender to the Nazi regime? This wouldn't make that person a hero but a retard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
