The US government has officially charged NSA whistleblower with espionage charges. Did he or did he not under national and international laws in fact committed espionage?
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is moreover an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes.
In the case of Snowden, the question lies in the issue of "obtain". He is a commissioned employee of the NSA, and as such the information he obtain he did so legally and with the full knowledge and consent of NSA, and by extension the US government. But when we start to reclassify obtain in the sense of obtaining for the purpose other than what is officially intended, which in this case Snowden did by coping NSA information and sharing them to the media, then the espionage case might make some sense. On the second point of being done on potential or actual enemies, for military purposes, this still has yet to be determined as the issue of whether Snowden is a spy for Hong Kong or China or whatever is still being investigated.
What does TL think about this issue? Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
Well I don't know. In a sense, Snowden released confidential information. On the other hand, it released confidential information about the US stealing confidential information from its citizens... So it cancels out, really.
I really don't think that illegal government activity is protected under any sort of National Security. Therefore exposing it can't be classified as any sort of crime. I'm quite certain the laws (conveniently) define things differently to protect those in power but that's absolutely not the way it should be.
I don't think there is a doubt that he is a criminal in the US. In Germany for example every other employee of NSA is a criminal. In Germany we have a saying: being in the right and getting justice are two different things.
On June 26 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote: I assume it's not technically espionage if obtaining the information was legal in the first place.
But I'm no US lawyer.
Someone summon dAPhREAk.
It's probably the releasing information part that's illegal, not how you get it. Some people in the CIA have security clearances so they get a lot of confidential information, they can't release it even if they get it "legally".
It all depends on th edefinitions and guidelines of "espionage" in the US I guess. Although since it is the US he will be tried or it, since, well, republicans.....
Under US law he is most certainly guilty of espionage. However I see him as a hero. He is jsut one of many whistleblowers nowadays bringing to light the criminality of the US government
On June 26 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote: I assume it's not technically espionage if obtaining the information was legal in the first place.
But I'm no US lawyer.
Someone summon dAPhREAk.
It's probably the releasing information part that's illegal, not how you get it. Some people in the CIA have security clearances so they get a lot of confidential information, they can't release it even if they get it "legally".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a law that makes what he did a punishable offense. I was just pondering if "espionage" is the correct legal term.
At the risk of sounding clichéd - the American colonies (and indeed any area of colonialism which subsequently rebelled in order to establish their independence) were breaking all sorts of laws with their uprising (not the least of which being treason). I think the law should many timesalways take backseat to Humanitarianism.
Isn't espionage when you obtain information that you werent supposed to have access to then release it? Also, what about that whistleblower protection act from 1989?
On June 26 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote: I assume it's not technically espionage if obtaining the information was legal in the first place.
But I'm no US lawyer.
Someone summon dAPhREAk.
It's probably the releasing information part that's illegal, not how you get it. Some people in the CIA have security clearances so they get a lot of confidential information, they can't release it even if they get it "legally".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a law that makes what he did a punishable offense. I was just pondering if "espionage" is the correct legal term.
They don't always use the correct legal terms... the boston bomber guy got charged with using a WMD x_x.
On June 26 2013 02:55 floor exercise wrote: I don't think he didn't not guiltify himself of espionage but if he didn't or did it was for the greater good of humanity
On June 26 2013 02:54 TheRabidDeer wrote: Isn't espionage when you obtain information that you werent supposed to have access to then release it? Also, what about that whistleblower protection act from 1989?
Obama promised he would protect whistle blowers and then turned out to be the most oppressive president in our history. His administration has been nothing but antagonistic to the free press, he's had citizens executed simply for suspected terrorism, and he's signed a bill that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens based on the mere suspicion of terrorism. 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.
On June 26 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote: I assume it's not technically espionage if obtaining the information was legal in the first place.
But I'm no US lawyer.
Someone summon dAPhREAk.
It's probably the releasing information part that's illegal, not how you get it. Some people in the CIA have security clearances so they get a lot of confidential information, they can't release it even if they get it "legally".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a law that makes what he did a punishable offense. I was just pondering if "espionage" is the correct legal term.
They don't always use the correct legal terms... the boston bomber guy got charged with using a WMD x_x.
To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same.
They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying.
Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
The fact that there are people supporting the government when it's essentially using propaganda and trying to play the good ol' "WE ARE THE BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT DON'T FUCK WITH US!" card, is pretty sad.. Like Snowden said, he *could* have leaked classified information to US "enemies" (a loose term), but the only thing he did was expose a very clear abuse of power from government's side. The officials have clearly lied to supreme court multiple times about the program.
Yes, the employees did write some kind of agreement to stay silent, but that SHOULD NOT apply when a crime is being covered up, right? As far as whistle-blowing goes, this is a pretty timid case with no way for "enemies" to take advantage of this information.
On June 26 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote: I assume it's not technically espionage if obtaining the information was legal in the first place.
But I'm no US lawyer.
Someone summon dAPhREAk.
It's probably the releasing information part that's illegal, not how you get it. Some people in the CIA have security clearances so they get a lot of confidential information, they can't release it even if they get it "legally".
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a law that makes what he did a punishable offense. I was just pondering if "espionage" is the correct legal term.
They don't always use the correct legal terms... the boston bomber guy got charged with using a WMD x_x.
Really? Wow... hyperbole much.
Yeah, something about the US Justice system using "WMD" ridiculously loosely... It's likely a way to slap death sentences and lifetime in prison on people without too much effort.
Here's what I find sinister. In the US, the court system is supposed to be the check to make sure the other branches of government behave in accordance with the law and constitution. But if these programs are super classified so that if you expose them you are hunted to the ends of the earth, there's no chance for a real court to ever check on it.
The FISA court (If you are unfamiliar, read here) acted grossly illegally by granting the warrant for this, way overstepped it's bounds and basically demonstrated exactly why people were always so concerned about it, a top secret government court with no oversight just granting whatever the other branches want.
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
Well, errr.....someone in this situation was certainly guilty of that. Not sure it was Snowden though.
On June 26 2013 02:54 TheRabidDeer wrote: Isn't espionage when you obtain information that you werent supposed to have access to then release it? Also, what about that whistleblower protection act from 1989?
US legal definition of espionage is: "The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" So the question is if he has reason to believe that the information "may be used to the injury if United States or the advantage of any foreign nation"
I would say the rubbery definition includes what he did and thus the kid has committed espionage.
It really depends on the definition of the term. I'd say he's probably guilty of espionage as the US government has defined it pursuant to its charges against him. But I think such a law is unjust and that Snowden was morally correct to break it and whistleblow.
I am sure there is some kind of groupthink mentality that is bringing me to think this, but it really feels like the US is nearly reaching that thought police level of "security".
Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
You're very loyal to your handlers.
I think that perhaps you should be loyal to the citizens of the US and not loyal to the government of the US. When the government does something which is unconstitutional, it's fair game to disobey your corrupt government.
Oaths don't supersede the importance of the citizens.
Snowden is not a traitor. The true bad guys here are the politicians who decided to disregard the constitution and decided to spy on their own citizens.
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
But what if that branch of the government is breaching the constitution? He may be a traitor to the American government but he is a hero to the American people. The government is the employee of the people and when the government oversteppes its mandate (like it has clearly done here, lying to courts etc.) it's the duty of every good citizen to expose the obvious misuse of power.
On June 26 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote: It really depends on the definition of the term. I'd say he's probably guilty of espionage as the US government has defined it pursuant to its charges against him. But I think such a law is unjust and that Snowden was morally correct to break it and whistleblow.
I agree. I, however, still lack a lot of understanding about the specifics. Example: PRISM is a program about american based internet companies agreeing to supply NSA with still unspecified information about users. However, Obama is thundering that only the phone number of both people speaking will be recorded and thus the wiretapping from NSA is anonymous? Huh? I still haven't heard the people in the know actually saying anything substantial about the revealed information on PRISM and the use of telephone survillance is not the thing in question here. I hope that the telephone thing is an analogy for only IP being connected over social media (an IP they can connect to a person from ISPs), but that seems completely inconsistent with FISA and the broad data mining supposedly being done...
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same.
They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying.
Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
Actually it is not. TL profits most from US so I seen their mods protect US and some of its actions through different topics by banning or deleting content from some posters. And by that I mean content that bashes US over the top. What is left is bashing that is standard and not in any way over the top.
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same.
They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying.
Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
Actually it is not. TL profits most from US so I seen their mods protect US and some of its actions through different topics by banning or deleting content from some posters.
Yeah I don't think the mods are modding according to where their profits come from x_x
On June 26 2013 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I wasn't aware of informing the American Public of being spied on was espionage.
pretty much
he's a hero(and im talking about full on movie style hero) and stood up for the right thing.
but ofc there are most likely 9234 laws against what he did (and even if not they will do evrything to get him) so the exact term that will be used as reasoning for lifetime prison doesnt matter anyways.
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same.
They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying.
Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
Actually it is not. TL profits most from US so I seen their mods protect US and some of its actions through different topics by banning or deleting content from some posters. And by that I mean content that bashes US over the top. What is left is bashing that is standard and not in any way over the top.
bullshit. TL mods just wont let senseless bashing or flamewars happen. which is good. but feel free to search out 10 "unfair" bans to protect the US. pm me them, would love to see it.
On June 26 2013 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I wasn't aware of informing the American Public of being spied on was espionage.
He informed everyone in the world, including enemies of the US, not only the american public.
My econ professor wrote a short blog about PRISM. The summary is basically that if you have an information collection system that becomes weaker when people become aware of it, it's probably a really bad system.
https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/10152515892046686 "My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy." - Ron Paul
killing hitler was against german law too and everyone who tried it is now a hero ... no if you do something RIGHT! who really cares the laws ? then the laws are just wrong and need to be fixed he wanna prevent you guys all from that totalitaire state you think america is gonna fight but is becoming to be one rly ... in such a case, who gives a shit on laws made by the guys who break every existing law in the world (or change them to fit them better)
I was reading a Greenwald article and this excerpt really raised an eyebrow of mine:
Prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, there were a grand total of three prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act (including the prosecution of Dan Ellsberg by the Nixon DOJ). That's because the statute is so broad that even the US government has largely refrained from using it. But during the Obama presidency, there are now seven such prosecutions: more than double the number under all prior US presidents combined.
I knew the U.S. government had basically all the apparatus it needs to get rid of anyone it wants it doesn't like, with PATRIOT act and later acts that reinforced state power, but that really puts Obama's way of running things into perspective. Kudos to Greenwald and the Guardian for everything they've done since this story broke. I used to follow him when he wrote for Salon, but at some point stopped frequenting his page (because I didn't need/or was interested in a daily reminder of how horrid our state of affairs is). The Espionage act in general might be something worth one's investigation to put this trend in better perspective.
On June 26 2013 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I wasn't aware of informing the American Public of being spied on was espionage.
pretty much
he's a hero(and im talking about full on movie style hero) and stood up for the right thing.
The problem is that you are using morality to justify his actions. The reason that this is a problem is that the way world politics works, morality is completely irrelevant. Sure, politicians might use morality to try and get in your head and win votes, but really - especially in foreign affairs- morality basically doesn't exist. If it did, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.
The biggest problem is that the US government seems content to twist and bend the law to their ends. Its one thing acting in an immoral way, but the law needs to be there to protect people, and sidestepping it the way that the governments involved (US and UK) have is a disgrace. The other problem here is accountability. Who is to blame for this illegal action by the governments? We will never know. There is zero accountability, so there is no need to act responsibly or in the way that the people want you to act. You can do what you want. I'm sorry to tell you but this isn't going to stop any time in the near future. The whole system of law surrounding government activity would have to be torn down and rebuilt.
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
Thank you, I think this quote fits the situation perfectly.
If you reveal such a big scandal, the first thing which should be done is penalizing the government that behaves like this.
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
What does that oath swear to defend? The constitution
Against what? Enemies, foreign and domestic.
Now who's the enemy of the constitution? One side with one oath-breaker, or another side with 100000 oath-breakers like yourself. His was broken in defense. If only you could claim the same.
On June 26 2013 03:33 Djzapz wrote: He's clearly guilty by the law, but he also did the right thing. The law is not infallible.
Calling him a hero is sensationalist at best, though. But I think that what he did is very good.
well how many movies/books star a guy that works for government/company X ,then finds out that they do bad thing Y and then he quits ,works against X/Y and gets hunted by his former "allies"?
and even without bringing fiction into this, he willing/knowingly gave up his normal life and evrything to do the right thing. for the benefit of evryone else but him. sounds quite heroic to me.
ofc its a big word to shout around and in hype often gets overused. but this guy really qualifies.
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
"Support and defend the constitution" is pretty much exactly what he was doing. He informed the public that they were being spied on - wouldn't that be the opposite of being treacherous to the US? He seems more like a defender of the US public - whereas the government would appear to be the real traitors.
I would say yes but I do not know really cause I think he signed a NDA but .... BUT I think it would´ve been better if the US just set up a deal with him after leaking all the stuff so that he shuts up. Now the USA is two times negative mentioned in the press.
Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
No offense, but there are a lot of flatly uninformed citizens in my country. Suspecting something and knowing something is two different realities. Some people literally wouldn't know if their own head was on fire till the gossip came back around or the Penguin Documentary told them.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.
Honest question: Why does this matter so much? I can see how everyone is scared its going to turn into 1984 but do you honestly think that's gonna happen with today's society and the level of globalized connectedness? Also, why are people so worried about what the government knows? Do you have something to hide? I honestly don't care that a random guy in the government knows what I do online, even if it is inappropriate. I don't care that they know who I call and what I text people. The only way I would have a problem with it is if they started making all the records public and started persecuting based on the information unequally (like if they charge only some people for pirating and let others go for instance).
Also, why are so many people surprised by this? Yeah we see it in movies and videogames but did you really think it was that far from the truth that there are people that are capable of hacking into every aspect of your life and retrieving your data? Also, do you really think America's the only one that's doing this? I would not be surprised if every industrialized country had some sort of espionage like this.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
This would be true if they convinced us he was a spy for another country.
On June 26 2013 02:59 Jockmcplop wrote: To be honest (i know America bashing is way over the top on this forum) i think the US has handled this situation extremely badly. They are starting to be as unpopular as they were during the Bush regime. The impression they are giving out is that they can do what the fuck they want with people's data, all over the world, and anybody who exposes it or gets in the way will be chased down and jailed. My government is just as bad. If it had been a UK citizen, i'm sure the situation would look the same.
They need to learn to take a loss, instead raging and crying.
Snowden is not a hero, and he is not a criminal. He did his duty as a citizen of the world. Punishing him for this is a crime.
I agree with pretty much everything. In a democracy, the government has no right to keep secrets from its citizens, with one exception only, and that is information that could be dangerous in the hands of an enemy. That's not the case here. The fact that Prism has been confirmed to exist, doesn't endanger USA or its citizens. All it does is it hurts the reputation of the US government, and that's why they kept it secret to begin with. I've been known to cut the US government a lot of slack, but this is unacceptable. The fact that he exposed the governments lies by releasing the information, overrides the criminal nature of releasing this kind of information. Things like this shouldn't be secret, and it was his duty to release it.
To me, this is not about Prism per say being bad, if the US deems it to be necessary, then go ahead, I wouldn't support it, but if the majority would vote on a party that supported it, then why not? It's the fact that they lied and kept this vital information from their citizens that is unacceptable.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Snowden is not a traitor, but I would not go so far as calling him a hero either. The fact people do call him a hero is particularly sad as he did what was right. People merely doing the right thing being heroes is making me sad about the state of my country.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that.
Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that.
Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered.
Isn't due process something that's supposed to be public knowledge? Not the details of a particular case obviously but the process by which information is allowed to be gathered? The criteria for issuing a warrant? The office that issues said warrants? The whole thing just reeks of circumventing due process.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that.
Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered.
Isn't due process something that's supposed to be public knowledge? Not the details of a particular case obviously but the process by which information is allowed to be gathered? The criteria for issuing a warrant? The office that issues said warrants? The whole thing just reeks of circumventing due process.
You are more or less right, though the law is murky in this area. The problem is that, as far as we know, no warrants or indictments were served as a result of evidence gathered with the NSA's program; according to them, it's resources were only utilized in pursuit of foreign enemy combatants/terrorists. Then again, whether or not all the information is available here is also questionable.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
Plus there's that whole inconvenient 4th amendment which protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Collecting our information with a secret warrant (whether or not they intend to use it or even notice that they've collected it) is a pretty clear violation of that.
Yeah, I agree, but am open to the possibility that the program might be proven "lawful" given the scope of the information gathered.
Isn't due process something that's supposed to be public knowledge? Not the details of a particular case obviously but the process by which information is allowed to be gathered? The criteria for issuing a warrant? The office that issues said warrants? The whole thing just reeks of circumventing due process.
You are more or less right, though the law is murky in this area. The problem is that, as far as we know, no warrants or indictments were served as a result of evidence gathered with the NSA's program; according to them, it's resources were only utilized in pursuit of foreign enemy combatants/terrorists. Then again, whether or not all the information is available here is also questionable.
But they still knowingly collected domestic citizens' date, even if inadvertently. You'll have to forgive my "BUT BUT BUT" response style in this thread. I have a hard time sticking to what the law specifically says when the law is very probably either warped or willfully murky. You are correct. Although I think the fact that laws allow such dancing around the 4th amendment is pretty atrocious.
On June 26 2013 03:44 GreyKnight wrote: Yes, but prosecuting him is a waste of time. He did not say anything anyone did not already know. Hes just baiting the feds while the rest of the world watches in glee at this PR battle.
Well that depends on the message one wants to send. If you are looking to further reinforce the notion that what Snowden did is unacceptable, prosecuting him makes a lot of sense.
What he did was whistleblowing. "not for hire espionage" or "conciousness espionage". Reinforcing a notion of whistlebloweing being unacceptable is problematic since the whole foundation of whistleblowing is a sign of something being seen as a huge problem that the person wants the public to be aware of.
Heck. I'm even referring to Obamas arguments before he became president here.
It doesn't really matter what Obama himself has argued, there is information pertinent to national security that government officials have an interest in keeping out of the public eye, and an according interest in discouraging its dissemination by government employees. Whether or not the entirety of the information released by Snowden falls under "whistleblower" protection is the crux of the debate, and I'm not really sure myself. On one hand, I think a huge number of people grossly overestimate the granularity of the information gathered by the NSA's programs; because of proportionality, I think the relative threat of the government turning into some Orwellian state very low. On the other, the government has done a poor job showing due diligence in oversight of the program, and they need to prove it well regulated or scrap it at once.
I would say Obama's words and actions on these matters are pertinent. If this is the guy we can trust, then we have a problem. The elected officials do have an interest in this case, and it just so happens to clash with their responsibilities and oaths.
Still waiting to hear more on the NSA documentation referring to 80 page FISA decision that declared what was occurring was illegal. I have not seen it but as I understand the NSA was trying to find workarounds to get in compliance(aka breaking the law) The real irony probably comes during Snowden's theoretical trail when he could not use it as evidence that he was indeed revealing criminality rather the engaging in nefarious behavior for spite. It's classified. Secret decisions, secret interpretations.
Wouldn't have been much of a secret to Snowden. The media behavior on this matter has flatly been some Church committee material.
Its sad the state of affairs the world is in when people like edward snowden is considered a traitor. The US govt is delusional. Massive spying on the entire globe? Assassinations on the entire globe at free will? prosecution of journalists and whistle-blowers?
The only people who are guilty of crimes on humanity is the US govt and their cronies around the world.
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Honest question: Why does this matter so much? I can see how everyone is scared its going to turn into 1984 but do you honestly think that's gonna happen with today's society and the level of globalized connectedness?
Yes. What do you think the people or public or whatever you want to call them will do you? I'm guessing nothing will be done about this and it will be forgotten (no one will be facing jail time except Snowden). The masses have power but it doesn't matter because people are indifferent until it directly affects their everyday lives.
Also, why are people so worried about what the government knows? Do you have something to hide?
As long as the legality of the NSA's program is held up, Snowden committed espionage. It's the same thing with whistleblowing and NDAs. If they're not doing anything illegal and you reveal secrets, it's a breach of contract. In Snowden's case, that breach can be approached in Federal criminal courts instead of civil courts.
On June 26 2013 04:45 sekritzzz wrote: Its sad the state of affairs the world is in when people like edward snowden is considered a traitor. The US govt is delusional. Massive spying on the entire globe? Assassinations on the entire globe at free will? prosecution of journalists and whistle-blowers?
The only people who are guilty of crimes on humanity is the US govt and their cronies around the world.
Us disagreeing with someone does not make what they do illegal.
Snowden did technically break the law. Sure, the law he broke is the one that we see good guys do in movies just as they reveal the corruption of _______ evil government/corporation; but in the end he did break it and hence has to be treated like any other breaker of the law.
And what exactly did he reveal? That the Patriot Act passed 12 years ago is doing exactly what it said it would do...
I mean, I feel for the guy, and I understand our need to root for the TV hero, how can we not? We're constantly told that those movies are nothing but fantasy and now we have our own real life spy hero. It would be strange for us not to want to root for him.
But telling the american people that the government is doing what we asked them to do 12 years ago is not exactly game changing stuff.
My heart wants to root for the guy, but what are we really rooting for?
I think that Snowden, acting post-conventionally, was reasonable in his action morally speaking--in that it adhered to his own moral fiber and what have you. Pragmatically, it was stupid in that now he's kind of screwed and he's given ammunition to other nations to lambaste the states, even though I'm sure most nations have some process akin to this in place.
Snowden should be given an award of some of the highest honor of the land and forever be known as one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the planet.
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Honest question: Why does this matter so much? I can see how everyone is scared its going to turn into 1984 but do you honestly think that's gonna happen with today's society and the level of globalized connectedness?
Yes. What do you think the people or public or whatever you want to call them will do you? I'm guessing nothing will be done about this and it will be forgotten (no one will be facing jail time except Snowden). The masses have power but it doesn't matter because people are indifferent until it directly affects their everyday lives.
Also, why are people so worried about what the government knows? Do you have something to hide?
There's a reason we don't build our toilets in the living room. There's nothing wrong with taking a shit, but that doesn't mean I wanna do it with an audience.
the US government wants to label him as a traitor or a person with questionable moral at the very least, they are demanding HK to pass Snowden over so that he can be sent to trail. Snowden left HK since the government did not have enough time to complete the paperwork to retain him in Hong Kong.
He isn't guilty of espionage. He hasn't told an enemy of the state secrets. He told the American people what was being done to them...if he's charged with espionage and sentenced, that means we are the enemy here to the US government.
oh come on, don't be that ignorant. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. That does not absolve him from the law, which is in place to protect the country. He has to be punished, even if it is just for the sake of other information that does need to stay hidden (military emergency/strategic plans, weak points in important infrastructure, undercover agents that get killed for being revealed etc).
In my opinion the right thing would probably have been to go to the authorities (any boss of his or a higher-up politician who does have part in power over deciding this kind of stuff), and only go to the public if all those efforts bear no fruit as a last resort. It would have done way less collateral (political) damage. Would it be unfair if this would never have been made public? Maybe. But it is just as unfair to others the way this was made public, and way more people had to suffer for this. He deserves to be punished.
On June 26 2013 05:05 Roonweld wrote: He isn't guilty of espionage. He hasn't told an enemy of the state secrets. He told the American people what was being done to them...if he's charged with espionage and sentenced, that means we are the enemy here to the US government.
the same thing has been said here about half a dozend times at least (just in this thread). Kinda weird to see all the sheeps follow the meta game blindly.
I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Sounds like Snowden committed a data crime. Information theft of some sort. If he was an employee of any other corporation and stole or publicized company secrets intending to make them public knowledge it wouldn't be an act of espionage or treason.
The question is whether or not Snowden's crime compromised national security and endangered lives. If the answer is "Some skeletons fell out of our closet but nobody was hurt." then I don't think they can consider his crime to be espionage and have it stick.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
Snowden knew what was going to happen when he released all of this, he gave up a very well paying job, basically his entire life when he released all of this. He's a hero and a patriot, I know these terms get overused a lot, but this time it's literally the case.
All that said though, more on topic, he'll probably be found guilty of espionage under that archaic piece of legislation called the espionage act, the same piece of legislation they used in WW2 to create those internment camps for Japanese citizens.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
Don't be such a pedant, he's not far from the truth. He definitely took the moral high-ground on this one. He could've easily carried on raking in 200k a year until he felt like retiring. Instead he did the right thing, which not many people would've done.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
Lol, I would perhaps consider leaking Watergate as more important. . . .. . .....
On June 26 2013 05:05 Cirqueenflex wrote: oh come on, don't be that ignorant. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. That does not absolve him from the law, which is in place to protect the country. He has to be punished, even if it is just for the sake of other information that does need to stay hidden (military emergency/strategic plans, weak points in important infrastructure, undercover agents that get killed for being revealed etc).
I agree with your first sentence, not so much after that. Snowden released the data only after very meticulously making sure he wasn't releasing anything that could put anyone in danger (the main thing that sets him apart from Manning). The only reason the state "needs" to come down hard on him is to discourage future whistleblowers, which I don't consider to be a good thing. Whistleblowers need to be protected.
On June 26 2013 05:05 Cirqueenflex wrote: In my opinion the right thing would probably have been to go to the authorities (any boss of his or a higher-up politician who does have part in power over deciding this kind of stuff), and only go to the public if all those efforts bear no fruit as a last resort. It would have done way less collateral (political) damage. Would it be unfair if this would never have been made public? Maybe. But it is just as unfair to others the way this was made public, and way more people had to suffer for this. He deserves to be punished.
Don't be so naieve, do you think he's the first NSA operative to bring this stuff up? If it was resolvable internally by going "higher-up" we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we? In an ideal world you would be correct, but this isn't that ideal world that you're thinking of.
One of the senators(or congressman, I don't remember) that is on the intelligence committee tried to make this information public legally already as well. There was a hearing with the head of the NSA where he asked pointed questions (of which he knew the answers, but was not legally allowed to disclose), to try to get the information out. The head of the NSA just flat out lied.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
Lol, I would perhaps consider leaking Watergate as more important. . . .. . .....
Watergate was spying on political opposition. This is spying on the whole world. No matter the laws that were created in the aftermath of 9/11 to make this legal on paper, it is one of the most undemocratic and abusive measures committed by a western state in recent years. You guys should give him a medal and dissolve NSA instead of playing "catch me if you can" with him.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
No. 9/11 was essentially made impossible to repeat simply by locking the cabin doors in airplanes. Last I checked no one had a right to enter a plane cabin.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
Lol, I would perhaps consider leaking Watergate as more important. . . .. . .....
Or perhaps civil rights leaders of the 1960s (like MLK).
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
Snowden knew what was going to happen when he released all of this, he gave up a very well paying job, basically his entire life when he released all of this. He's a hero and a patriot, I know these terms get overused a lot, but this time it's literally the case.
All that said though, more on topic, he'll probably be found guilty of espionage under that archaic piece of legislation called the espionage act, the same piece of legislation they used in WW2 to create those internment camps for Japanese citizens.
Gotta love Constitution peddlers. What the NSA is doing is legal. What may be illegal is the law which Congress passed to make the NSA's actions legal.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
Lol, I would perhaps consider leaking Watergate as more important. . . .. . .....
Or perhaps civil rights leaders of the 1960s (like MLK).
On June 26 2013 03:16 TriO wrote: Yes, hes guilty of espionage and therefore a traitor. When we work for any type federal jobs from organization, institution, and state we are required to sign and obey this loyalty oath. This oath requires us to support and defend the constitution against all enemies of the United States of America. By giving out information he broke this oath and therefore declared enemy of the state by doing so. He knew by releasing this information he would be an enemy/traitor to the U.S.
Snowden knew what was going to happen when he released all of this, he gave up a very well paying job, basically his entire life when he released all of this. He's a hero and a patriot, I know these terms get overused a lot, but this time it's literally the case.
All that said though, more on topic, he'll probably be found guilty of espionage under that archaic piece of legislation called the espionage act, the same piece of legislation they used in WW2 to create those internment camps for Japanese citizens.
Gotta love Constitution peddlers. What the NSA is doing is legal. What may be illegal is the law which Congress passed to make the NSA's actions legal.
I'm not peddling anything, I'm using one of the arguments the poster I was replying to made, against him.
On June 26 2013 03:00 MidKnight wrote: The fact that there are people supporting the government when it's essentially using propaganda and trying to play the good ol' "WE ARE THE BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT DON'T FUCK WITH US!" card, is pretty sad.. Like Snowden said, he *could* have leaked classified information to US "enemies" (a loose term), but the only thing he did was expose a very clear abuse of power from government's side. The officials have clearly lied to supreme court multiple times about the program.
Yes, the employees did write some kind of agreement to stay silent, but that SHOULD NOT apply when a crime is being covered up, right? As far as whistle-blowing goes, this is a pretty timid case with no way for "enemies" to take advantage of this information.
I think the Nuremberg trials proved this amply. Even if your superiors tell you to commit a crime, it is YOU who commits it and are thus responsible for your actions. Spying on citizens is an illegal act, and he is thus correct to refuse to do so, and in fact report the crime. In this case the only way of reporting it was to blow the whole thing open by giving the information to the press (the police would probably just have turned him right back over to the NSA, who would've destroyed the evidence and pretended it never happened).
So, I don't see how he can be guilty under international law. Of course, under US law I presume there are all kinds of clauses and things that mean he is guilty of theft, espionage and probably rape and murder as well if the NSA wants it so.
I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
On June 26 2013 03:00 MidKnight wrote: The fact that there are people supporting the government when it's essentially using propaganda and trying to play the good ol' "WE ARE THE BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT DON'T FUCK WITH US!" card, is pretty sad.. Like Snowden said, he *could* have leaked classified information to US "enemies" (a loose term), but the only thing he did was expose a very clear abuse of power from government's side. The officials have clearly lied to supreme court multiple times about the program.
Yes, the employees did write some kind of agreement to stay silent, but that SHOULD NOT apply when a crime is being covered up, right? As far as whistle-blowing goes, this is a pretty timid case with no way for "enemies" to take advantage of this information.
I think the Nuremberg trials proved this amply. Even if your superiors tell you to commit a crime, it is YOU who commits it and are thus responsible for your actions. Spying on citizens is an illegal act, and he is thus correct to refuse to do so, and in fact report the crime. In this case the only way of reporting it was to blow the whole thing open by giving the information to the press (the police would probably just have turned him right back over to the NSA, who would've destroyed the evidence and pretended it never happened).
So, I don't see how he can be guilty under international law. Of course, under US law I presume there are all kinds of clauses and things that mean he is guilty of theft, espionage and probably rape and murder as well if the NSA wants it so.
What the NSA is doing is incomprehensible, possibly immoral, and definitely makes me feel icky. But it's not illegal. Yay Bush you haunt me even after your terms are up...
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post.
I cant tell if I am Romanian or if this guy is actually serious.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights.
edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Is this even a question? Espionage is inherently a clandestine operation, Snowden is not a part of any intelligence or military operations, nor did he carry it out in secrecy from the public. He's acting against the interest of his government and he's using information which he already had access to. The espionage charge is all sorts of bull shit. If this is honestly a precedence to be set where we just label whistle blowers as spies the integrity with in non-publicly accessible organizations is going to drop off the god damn cliff-face.
On June 26 2013 05:10 Fruscainte wrote: I mean of course he's "guilty" in the legalistic sense, but he's honestly what this country needed.
Not all crime is inherently evil, I think is fair to say. What Snowden did was illegal, but probably the most morally correct thing anyone has done for this country in the past 50 years.
Really? Most morally correct anyone has done, for this country (presumably United States of America),in the past 50 years (1963-2013)?
45 years then, since I know the race cards are about to be thrown up :|
But yes, I'd argue that revealing this kind of information is something that is amazingly moral. This guy didn't do it for fame or fortune. He had a comfortable life and was in no danger. He wasn't doing this out of spite, he was doing it because it was fucking right and we deserve to know that our government is doing this kind of shit and he's paying the ultimate price for it.
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post.
If I'm not a terrorist or a pedophile or doing anything wrong, why does the government have any business spying on me?
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post.
If I'm not a terrorist or a pedophile or doing anything wrong, why does the government have any business spying on me?
Great satire though, 11/10
Just want to say, it was worth meow-meow getting temp banned for the smile on my face
In the eyes of the US? Of course. He leaked official secrets. It's the exact same issue as with Bradley Manning.
However, I do believe that morality is a defence and whether the official secrets leaked actually breach the US constitution. Having said this, if Snowden did end up in US hands, I would willingly go out on the streets and protest for his pardon and release. Privacy and an open internet are something I believe in hugely.
All I have to say is... this will likely affect the results of the next US election. If Obama's been exposed as 'Just Another Bush' for his support for the NSA surveilance program and his unwillingness to pardon Bradley Manning or stop blatantly trying to seize Julian Assange, then I can see a Republican landslide.
All the GOP has to do is say the right things and people will vote for them. Unfortunately for them, Mitt Romney didn't last year and Obama got a second term.
I would like to bring forward another issue: I have very limited knowledge of US law, so I can't tell if he is guilty or not, but I can plausibly imagine that he could be found guilty, because he definitely operated against many interests of a powerfull goverment.
But another question is: should any state release him to the US? I know this is in principle a question of international law, but international law happens to be a very strange kind of law in that there is no court. While states are expected to behave acccording to treaties, it is much easier and more common for them to break these and go unpunished than for ordinary people. I agree on releasing people accused of some sort of "universal" crime - if he did in his country something for which we would punish him here, such as murder, rape, robbery ... then we should let him be charged and tried. But spying on the US is generally not really illegal in any other country than US, why should any country help them to catch him?
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post.
If I'm not a terrorist or a pedophile or doing anything wrong, why does the government have any business spying on me?
Great satire though, 11/10
Just want to say, it was worth meow-meow getting temp banned for the smile on my face
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights.
edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
Snowden is Guilty of espionage on behalf of the US government when they told him to spy on the people. Revealing the truth of a corrupt government's actions should not globally be consider treason. Yet, it would make sense that the US would try and punish said whistler blower with every action they could twist.
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Yeah, I meant in a more moralistic level. Sure, many countries are just US-bitches, no doubt about that we would look for a golden or platinum plate to beat the UK, if necessary. But I am very curious about how it turns out in Russia, there can be quite a drama in the end. I also wanted to comment on the fact that the US is acting like if it was everyones duty to hand him over as fast as humanly possible, which is a little too self-confident position in my opinion.
On June 26 2013 05:50 DeCoder wrote: I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
On June 26 2013 05:50 DeCoder wrote: I think the bigger question is not whether Snowden did was illegal, but rather how it is possible for the surveillance NSA operated to be legal in the first place.
Legality isn't about moral or ethical principles, it's about enforcing a certain set of rules that is fair. The most absurd laws get passed all the time on the basis of principled proponents in power who want to enforce a certain rule-set that benefits themselves. The whole common law system is supposed to function as a constantly changing rule-set of precedence and over-turns, where nothing is set in stone except for the constitution (even that is amendable). Legal loopholes have existed since the invention of the concept and many of said loopholes are left intentionally open for the benefit of special interests.
If you have a system where every party is apparently benefiting from certain transactions and those parties included some subsidiary of the government, it doesn't even matter if it is illegal or not. Governments disobey domestic and international law all the time, very few have an active policy for following international law.
You see any representative from Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc speaking out on this subject before the story was made public? All the hundreds if not thousands of people who had inside knowledge and had to have at least the capacity of knowledge for the whole plan to be functional and implemented. No one said anything because it was in their own best interest. There is no conspiracy, only a tacit conflict of interest that everybody deep down understand.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights.
edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
What about speed traps? Surveillance cameras? Security checkpoints at large gatherings and events? By that logic, the government could never use police to stop crime in process, but rather bring people in after the fact.
Honestly, I think the NSA's program is shady, but possibly fair. There are no laws about obfuscating your browsing habits, emails, or phone calls, and there are cheap/free ways of doing so. If we consider internet activity in the public space (and protected by equal access laws etc.), then this makes sense.
On June 26 2013 05:35 Meow-Meow wrote: I'm sorry, but the man is a traitor and a terrorist.
The government tries to protect the people from turban guys and this little bitch tries to throw a wrench in their gears. Who does he think he is, fucking with America?
And so what if the government spy on us, have you got something to hide? If you're not a terrorist, gay or paedophile, surely you don't mind e-mail and telephone surveillance.
I'd rather have my conversations recorded than some anti-Jesus sand people fly an airplane into MY yard. Have you liberal pussies already forgotten Boston? That shows why we need a system in place to prevent Muslims from entering our great nation. Either send them back, or send them to my yard, and I will show them what a shotgun MADE IN AMERICA is capable of.
If you're fucking with Jesus, you're fucking with me.
User was temp banned for this post.
Obvious satire is a bannable offense now?
to the guy that asked me for 10 examples of pro US mods on TL, this case of banning satire is worth at least 20 examples.
he isnt a spy, his work gave him some information about amoral behaviour of the US and some allies and he chose to release it to everyone. Thats not spying.
What Snowden did is illegal, no doubt about that. The question should be "is it treason?", and that is a moral question; I believe he did what he did to stop the erosion of the US constitution. The focus on him as a person, asking if he is a criminal, all that should be absolutely irrelevant in that discussion.
This is an example of how media manipulation works. The NSA spokesman said (without noticing the irony) that spying on US citizens is wrong, and Snowden is a criminal. That's the narrative of the US government. Instead of playing into that, like this entire thread is doing, focus on the issue at hand, not on the person.
Snowden is absolutely guilty of espionage. But breaking the law can be a good thing in some rare cases, and I believe this is one of them.
When Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers detailing how corrupt our involvement in Vietnam was, he faced similar charges of espionage and treason. But today, many people, myself included, consider him a hero.
I'm confident history will say the same of Snowden.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights.
edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
What about speed traps? Surveillance cameras? Security checkpoints at large gatherings and events? By that logic, the government could never use police to stop crime in process, but rather bring people in after the fact.
Honestly, I think the NSA's program is shady, but possibly fair. There are no laws about obfuscating your browsing habits, emails, or phone calls, and there are cheap/free ways of doing so. If we consider internet activity in the public space (and protected by equal access laws etc.), then this makes sense.
Most of those things don't really acquire information that one can reasonable expect to be private. Speed traps see nothing more than the speed of a vehicle in a public area. Looking at the highway permits any human being to estimate the speed of a vehicle, and one cannot reasonably expect the speed of one's vehicle while one is traveling in plain sight to be private. Surveillance cameras are tricky. I'd argue that they should be permitted if they do not infringe on privacy, by which I mean that you can install surveillance cameras on your own property, but shouldn't be able to set one up in my house that spies on me. What you can see from your lawn is, of course, fair game. Security checkpoints are perfectly legitimate because they are mandated by whoever owns the property on which the event is being held or by the organizers of an event. If I have a party at my house, it would absolutely be absurd to require that I allow a security guard to inspect all of my guests, because I can let whomever I want into my house on my own terms.
The browsing habits and phone calls of individuals are not in the public space unless they occur in a publicly accessible area (e.g. if people overhear you talking on your cellphone in public, so be it) because you have no reason to suspect your neighbour of somehow tracking your browsing habits without engaging in some sort of trespassing. With phone calls, it's even easier to see that they're reasonably private. If I telephone someone from my own house, then it seems reasonable to suppose that I can expect that someone from China whom I've never met isn't going to be hearing me.
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: I would like to bring forward another issue: I have very limited knowledge of US law, so I can't tell if he is guilty or not, but I can plausibly imagine that he could be found guilty, because he definitely operated against many interests of a powerfull goverment.
But another question is: should any state release him to the US? I know this is in principle a question of international law, but international law happens to be a very strange kind of law in that there is no court. While states are expected to behave acccording to treaties, it is much easier and more common for them to break these and go unpunished than for ordinary people. I agree on releasing people accused of some sort of "universal" crime - if he did in his country something for which we would punish him here, such as murder, rape, robbery ... then we should let him be charged and tried. But spying on the US is generally not really illegal in any other country than US, why should any country help them to catch him?
There is no overarching UN convention on extradition, so each country does whatever it wants in that reguard. As long as Snowden stays out of countries that have extradition treaties with the US (and there are plenty of them out there) he should be fine in terms of international-law-mandated extratidions.
Of course, these countries may still choose to give Snowden over voluntarily if it is worth it politically (meaning if the US pays up/threatens in some way and/or if their own public opinion wants it). It's no surprise there's talk of him going to Equador, considering it would be quite a popular move for Equador's president.
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
That's true, I guess all EU states have signed extradition treaties, but I'm also pretty sure it's a hostile act to violate national privacy laws by spying on innocent citizens of a foreign nation as US+UK have done. In fact, I'm pretty sure wars have been started on lesser grounds, so I'm glad we live in civilized times and noone would go that far.
Now, I'd be even more happy to live in even more civilized times in which no government would have the audacity to violate the privacy and human rights of so many people it has absolutley no business violating. Shame on US+UK (and any other states that may commit similar acts and just haven't been revealed yet)...
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
Hong Kong(China) does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. At least if my source is correct.
On June 26 2013 05:05 Cirqueenflex wrote: oh come on, don't be that ignorant. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. That does not absolve him from the law, which is in place to protect the country. He has to be punished, even if it is just for the sake of other information that does need to stay hidden (military emergency/strategic plans, weak points in important infrastructure, undercover agents that get killed for being revealed etc).
In my opinion the right thing would probably have been to go to the authorities (any boss of his or a higher-up politician who does have part in power over deciding this kind of stuff), and only go to the public if all those efforts bear no fruit as a last resort. It would have done way less collateral (political) damage. Would it be unfair if this would never have been made public? Maybe. But it is just as unfair to others the way this was made public, and way more people had to suffer for this. He deserves to be punished.
On June 26 2013 05:05 Roonweld wrote: He isn't guilty of espionage. He hasn't told an enemy of the state secrets. He told the American people what was being done to them...if he's charged with espionage and sentenced, that means we are the enemy here to the US government.
the same thing has been said here about half a dozend times at least (just in this thread). Kinda weird to see all the sheeps follow the meta game blindly.
We have laws to protect whistleblowers so that when they do the right thing, for the right reasons, they aren't punished.
If a company, organization, or government is secretly breaking the law it shouldn't be illegal to expose that.He doesn't deserve to be punished.
On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote: Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing.
He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
They weren't breaking a law. But if they were It still doesn't matter.
The burden placed on someone with access to classified information is extreme.
And of course he committed espionage. Not only did he exceed the information he was allowed. He copied classified information and gave it to every fucking government and terrorist organization in the world.
A few years ago a few NSA guys testified before congress on this and stated, without committing any crime, that the government is spying on its people.
On June 26 2013 06:24 Whitewing wrote: Legally he's guilty.
Morally, he did the right thing.
He called out the NSA for violating the law, by violating the law. Does this not grant him some level of immunity by the justice system?
The way I imagine it, it's like cops and warrants. If cops find dead children in some dude's refrigerator, but they went in his house without a warrant / probable cause, it cannot be used in court. Anything illegally obtained, if something illegal itself, is ignored. Ironically, this allows what was found to be more easily hidden / protected...
This thing is playing out like a spy thriller 1980s, cold war style. I'm spending way too much time following this story.
I know many feel that the focus of the public and the media shouldn't be on Snowden (certainly not his past). But there is an important story here. It shows how whistle blowers can expect to be treated.
On June 26 2013 03:00 MidKnight wrote: The fact that there are people supporting the government when it's essentially using propaganda and trying to play the good ol' "WE ARE THE BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT DON'T FUCK WITH US!" card, is pretty sad.. Like Snowden said, he *could* have leaked classified information to US "enemies" (a loose term), but the only thing he did was expose a very clear abuse of power from government's side. The officials have clearly lied to supreme court multiple times about the program.
Yes, the employees did write some kind of agreement to stay silent, but that SHOULD NOT apply when a crime is being covered up, right? As far as whistle-blowing goes, this is a pretty timid case with no way for "enemies" to take advantage of this information.
I think the Nuremberg trials proved this amply. Even if your superiors tell you to commit a crime, it is YOU who commits it and are thus responsible for your actions. Spying on citizens is an illegal act, and he is thus correct to refuse to do so, and in fact report the crime. In this case the only way of reporting it was to blow the whole thing open by giving the information to the press (the police would probably just have turned him right back over to the NSA, who would've destroyed the evidence and pretended it never happened).
So, I don't see how he can be guilty under international law. Of course, under US law I presume there are all kinds of clauses and things that mean he is guilty of theft, espionage and probably rape and murder as well if the NSA wants it so.
What the NSA is doing is incomprehensible, possibly immoral, and definitely makes me feel icky. But it's not illegal. Yay Bush you haunt me even after your terms are up...
If espionage is illegal, then the NSA is doing illegal stuff.
If espionage is not illegal, then who cares whether Snowden is accused of espionage?
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote: The US government has officially charged NSA whistleblower with espionage charges. Did he or did he not under national and international laws in fact committed espionage?
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is moreover an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes.
In the case of Snowden, the question lies in the issue of "obtain". He is a commissioned employee of the NSA, and as such the information he obtain he did so legally and with the full knowledge and consent of NSA, and by extension the US government. But when we start to reclassify obtain in the sense of obtaining for the purpose other than what is officially intended, which in this case Snowden did by coping NSA information and sharing them to the media, then the espionage case might make some sense. On the second point of being done on potential or actual enemies, for military purposes, this still has yet to be determined as the issue of whether Snowden is a spy for Hong Kong or China or whatever is still being investigated.
What does TL think about this issue? Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
That is funny if that's our definition. Ironic because he actually just pointed out that the government was guilty of espionage of its citizens.
The NSA can say they aren't breaking the law all they want because they have protection from the people who we expect to hold everyone responsible for said laws. But the fact is they are, they just think its excusable.
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Do you have something to hide?
Yes, this thing called "privacy".
Theoretically, so long as they punish people who leak information, you do have "privacy" in that the information they gather is not to be made public.
I guess he wants privacy, not "privacy. "
I know he's talking about the theoretical understanding of privacy and not the literal understanding of privacy. Or, more specifically, he wants personal autonomy of information commonly understood to be his own.
A lot of our "privacy" is technically shared with various institutions. Banks, Hospitals, Insurance, DMV, etc... and our execution of privacy is the control of how public and how shared this information is.
However our "concept" of privacy is the idea of no one having an idea about us and our information being locked away for only those we deem worthy.
The NSA, in essence, is no different from having medical records, police records, bank records, etc... All information shared with an institution kept private by a promise shared between the person who owns the information and the institution that holds the information. We gave them the okay 12 years ago with the Patriot Act.
The NSA, however, breaks our concept of privacy since it was 12 fucking years ago passed by a president at least half the US hates. The other half are paranoid nutbags who are scared of gun registration let alone full bore observation.
So while the NSA does keep things about as "private" as a hospital keeps thing private; its obvious that its the concept of privacy they shattered, not actual privacy.
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote: The US government has officially charged NSA whistleblower with espionage charges. Did he or did he not under national and international laws in fact committed espionage?
Under US laws, espionage means a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is moreover an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes.
In the case of Snowden, the question lies in the issue of "obtain". He is a commissioned employee of the NSA, and as such the information he obtain he did so legally and with the full knowledge and consent of NSA, and by extension the US government. But when we start to reclassify obtain in the sense of obtaining for the purpose other than what is officially intended, which in this case Snowden did by coping NSA information and sharing them to the media, then the espionage case might make some sense. On the second point of being done on potential or actual enemies, for military purposes, this still has yet to be determined as the issue of whether Snowden is a spy for Hong Kong or China or whatever is still being investigated.
What does TL think about this issue? Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
That is funny if that's our definition. Ironic because he actually just pointed out that the government was guilty of espionage of its citizens.
The NSA can say they aren't breaking the law all they want because they have protection from the people who we expect to hold everyone responsible for said laws. But the fact is they are, they just think its excusable.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
This, when the people who decide what is considered legal are the ones that want to break the law, we are in trouble. Oh and they decide their interpretation of the law in secret.
Espionage, or spying? no. Leaking condifential information "vital" to state, yeah he will be charged with that.
Thing is, he didnt transfer the information to a rival state in secret. he opened it to public, and to my knowladge he didn't put anyone under danger. he just released information on the project. If he was a reporter, what he did would not have been a crime at all.
The legal binding rises with his cotnract I guess.
He is fighting a losing battle. Not only he failed to obtain the protection he was looking at Hong Kong, he is having trouble finding his next safe heaven. His departure of Hong Kong prematurely probably indicate that he is not longer safe in Hong Kong. Now that he is stranded at Moscow airport, not on his way to the next destination probably means he is having a hard time to seek asylum.
Good people are always punished for their actions: that much history has taught us. Because in order to create some change, you need to be radical, not like the millions of followers. And this is in where the problem lies, not many would be prepared to give up their life of freedom to at least create some waves. Making something of your life, doesn't mean you have to be successful at your job (this is in my opinion the biggest misunderstanding), it means you have to be true to yourself in the end and if that means joining a freedom movement to expose corrupt, fraudulent and illegal spying practices, then that's what I'll continue to do.
Yes PRISM could well be very illegal in the constitution, the UN is currently looking into what might be a series of broken laws regarding mass spying on European citizens.
On June 26 2013 05:25 biology]major wrote: more appropriate question is do we have to sacrifice our rights to combat terrorism, even a little?
More more appropriate question: Should this be a question at all? Sacrificing human rights cannot be justified by any means. If there once is a legitimation to rob a person of his or her inherited rights, it will always remain a door opener to pursue people that are different from what those in charge expect them to be. It is the key to a totaliterian regime, which none of us should be willing to allow.
there is a conflict of interest between preserving human life vs preserving human rights.
edit: what the government did was wrong by not being transparent to the people, that much I know. But is the actual surveillance a crime? If it even stopped 1 terrorist attack from happening then is it justifiable?
Surveillance without reasoning is a crime. It suggests everybody is a criminal and leaves rules set by the law out of consideration. Even if illegal surveillance stops a terrorist attack, how can you allow abuse of human rights in the millions to justify the safe of a few lifes? Human rights are the highest good we have, and we should not allow it to be taken only we feel to comfortable demanding consequences from people spying on us and invading our privacy.
What about speed traps? Surveillance cameras? Security checkpoints at large gatherings and events? By that logic, the government could never use police to stop crime in process, but rather bring people in after the fact.
Honestly, I think the NSA's program is shady, but possibly fair. There are no laws about obfuscating your browsing habits, emails, or phone calls, and there are cheap/free ways of doing so. If we consider internet activity in the public space (and protected by equal access laws etc.), then this makes sense.
Most of those things don't really acquire information that one can reasonable expect to be private. Speed traps see nothing more than the speed of a vehicle in a public area. Looking at the highway permits any human being to estimate the speed of a vehicle, and one cannot reasonably expect the speed of one's vehicle while one is traveling in plain sight to be private. Surveillance cameras are tricky. I'd argue that they should be permitted if they do not infringe on privacy, by which I mean that you can install surveillance cameras on your own property, but shouldn't be able to set one up in my house that spies on me. What you can see from your lawn is, of course, fair game. Security checkpoints are perfectly legitimate because they are mandated by whoever owns the property on which the event is being held or by the organizers of an event. If I have a party at my house, it would absolutely be absurd to require that I allow a security guard to inspect all of my guests, because I can let whomever I want into my house on my own terms.
The browsing habits and phone calls of individuals are not in the public space unless they occur in a publicly accessible area (e.g. if people overhear you talking on your cellphone in public, so be it) because you have no reason to suspect your neighbour of somehow tracking your browsing habits without engaging in some sort of trespassing. With phone calls, it's even easier to see that they're reasonably private. If I telephone someone from my own house, then it seems reasonable to suppose that I can expect that someone from China whom I've never met isn't going to be hearing me.
If we imagine the internet as a public space, then browsing history is fair game, as are speed limits. The requests that are generated are available publicly via cookies and other tracking methods. Whether you explicitly consented to this or not, you are broadcasting your information to the public. Of course, you have to make visiting specific websites and looking at their content explicitly illegal for it to be comparable to speed limits, and that is not done (to any noticeable degree).
If we don't, then we must at least admit to using an infrastructure that is owned and regulated by the companies we use to browse and the government. In that case, it is much like the stadium/event structure. The datacenters are owned and operated by cloud computing companies. Google, Yahoo, AOL, Apple, and so on already have access to that information and likely have a TOU agreement that makes managing that data (and access privileges) their responsibility. If they wish to allow government officials to have access to their servers, then it can be done.
For phones, it falls under the same scenario as cloud computing. The phone company has the responsibility to make those connections, which is the only thing the NSA has access to through these specific programs. Nobody is listening in on phone calls, but they are seeing records of what phones are being connected, information which can be distributed at the discretion of the phone company/companies involved.
I should add that at no point is the government reaching into your personal documents on your PC, phone, or device and retrieving data that you have not provided on the internet. These items are still protected under privacy rights.
Saying that Snowden is a traitor and committed espionage is simply doublespeak from those in government who do not want to see this type of information brought out to the American people. Absolutely nothing that he released jeopardized the security of Americans. The only thing that has been jeopardized was the validity of the US Govt. in the eyes of it's citizens.
On June 26 2013 07:12 alwaysfeeling wrote: Saying that Snowden is a traitor and committed espionage is simply doublespeak from those in government who do not want to see this type of information brought out to the American people. Absolutely nothing that he released jeopardized the security of Americans. The only thing that has been jeopardized was the validity of the US Govt. in the eyes of it's citizens.
Regardless of whether you think what the NSA was doing is RIGHT or WRONG, they had a warrant from FISA saying that they could obtain the information they were obtaining. The NSA in no way violated any rules or laws. This does not mean what they were doing is right or wrong, but merely that they were not breaking any laws.
What Snowden did, however, does not grant him any immunity under certain whistleblower laws that are in place. Also the amount of additional information that he has and we don't know about actually makes him a huge threat to American national security.
So should he be extradited and charged? Within the parameters of American law - yes.
He outed the NSA for doing something that was proportioned as legal by the FISA courts then fleed the country after the fact with additional classified NSA information/documents.
I'm not gonna be siding with the gov't or Snowden, but he definitely should be brought back and given a fair trial.
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Do you have something to hide?
Yes, this thing called "privacy".
So its okay that banks, hospitals, schools, internet companies, house contractors, etc know your private information and what you do but not the government? The government still technically keeps your privacy by not disclosing your personal information. When they start disclosing that, its a breach of privacy. Maybe i'm crazy buy i'm fine with the idea the government knows everything about me as long as they don't tell people. I mean, I don't think i'm doing anything wrong. What do you and I possibly have to hide that's so damaging?
Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
Honestly, from the way Snowden was talking in his interview, he did seem somewhat paranoid about how "government could use the information to incriminate you for anything". And yes, they technically could. I do think that it's obviously not gonna be used to harass innocent average people and its main purpose *is* to monitor shady behaviour which isn't a bad thing.
What this case does show, however, is that governments approach is fundamentally fucked up. This case is as clear cut as it can possibly get as far as the possibility of damage from this leak. Anyone with common sense will realize that it's simply laughable that they are trying to persecute him for "leaking information to enemies of US". It's legitimately like some kind of parody, there's no other word for it. They know it, everyone knows it, but they are trying to sell it with a straight face and will succeed because law is on their side.. It's obviously all about propaganda and fear-mongering. It's basically just trying to set another example of "what happens if you fuck with us, we'll destroy your life. Just sit in your place". People shouldn't put up with this.
This whole situation reminded me of this George Carlin clip.
"And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on". That's exactly what Snowden said in his interview. His biggest fear was that people will rally for a while and then just say "meh" while he will rot in prison for the rest of his life, having given away a comfortable life with a huge paycheck as well as his family.
On June 26 2013 07:25 darkness wrote: Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Do you have something to hide?
Yes, this thing called "privacy".
So its okay that banks, hospitals, schools, internet companies, house contractors, etc know your private information and what you do but not the government? The government still technically keeps your privacy by not disclosing your personal information. When they start disclosing that, its a breach of privacy. Maybe i'm crazy buy i'm fine with the idea the government knows everything about me as long as they don't tell people. I mean, I don't think i'm doing anything wrong. What do you and I possibly have to hide that's so damaging?
On June 26 2013 07:12 alwaysfeeling wrote: Saying that Snowden is a traitor and committed espionage is simply doublespeak from those in government who do not want to see this type of information brought out to the American people. Absolutely nothing that he released jeopardized the security of Americans. The only thing that has been jeopardized was the validity of the US Govt. in the eyes of it's citizens.
The thing is though, the focus is always put on the American people in this matter, as you wrote in your post. However, the reason he isn't in jail or even executed is because of the NON american people. The information he leaked might make americans feel uncomfortable (wtf our government is spying on us!?) but if you see it from our perspective, it's almost worse, which is why foreign powers are quite willing to protect Snowden.
You want to search online? You use google.com. You want to use a social network? facebook.com. Turns out, using those sites is giving the US vital information about us. The US government is probably worried about their own hide when this comes out, but think about google and facebook? It must suck for them when a huge part of their market segment (every single foreigner) wants to stop using them because in a sense, simply writing what you're doing privately on facebook is feeding a foreign government information?
Not like Sweden would care, we bow down to the US in everything which is why we still do not have nuclear bombs even though we were one of the vanguards in the research, but it's important to emphasize how this is a global issue, it's far more than a domestic US issue.
On June 26 2013 05:46 opisska wrote: why should any country help them to catch him?
Economic incentivization is a powerful thing, Snowden had to carefully pick which country he would flee to. I'm sure the UK would hand him over on a silver platter for instance. As would many EU countries, probably including my own.
Legally speaking most EU countries (or even Hong Kong) can't choose to not turn him over. They've signed extradition treaties, legally binding by their own law, under which extradition requests can only be procedurally evaluated, not on the content of the case.
Hong Kong(China) does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. At least if my source is correct.
It's not. There is an extradition treaty in place and while I cba to read it, the way news organisations presented it Hong Kong had no viable exception to accommodate Snowden even if they wanted to, which makes extradition largely procedural.
On June 26 2013 02:52 Panda86 wrote: Under US law he is most certainly guilty of espionage. However I see him as a hero. He is jsut one of many whistleblowers nowadays bringing to light the criminality of the US government
Too bad people are so focused on the US government alone. You will find that every single government that is and ever was had its issues with corruption. People tend to love to hate the ones on top though.
I fully respect Snowden for the sacrifices he made to come out with the truth. But sadly, I doubt it will have any impact on the future. In the end, the only thing he fucked up is himself, which is really tragic. It's not like the NSA and probably every other intelligence agency started to gather and store those informations yesterday, it just has become much more convenient through the internet. Just look at how many people are okay with facebook and co leaking informations to other organizations. As long as there is no real danger to the civilization, I strongly doubt there will be any consequences, except for the hunt on Snowden.
On June 26 2013 07:25 darkness wrote: Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
The problem is not the system, the problem is what happens to people within a system.
The problem is that no system is adaptive enough to keep up with a change in preference.
Democracy will be loved, until its not.
I think adapting has nothing to do with freedom which is often synonym of democracy. Thus said, it's hilarious how USA and UK pretend to be anti-communist, while playing the Big Brother role at the same time. Example of USA (Snowden's case) and of UK (CCTV everywhere).
On June 26 2013 07:25 darkness wrote: Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
The problem is not the system, the problem is what happens to people within a system.
The problem is that no system is adaptive enough to keep up with a change in preference.
Democracy will be loved, until its not.
I think adapting has nothing to do with freedom which is often synonym of democracy. Thus said, it's hilarious how USA and UK pretend to be anti-communist, while playing the Big Brother role at the same time. Example of USA (Snowden's case) and of UK (CCTV everywhere).
Well sort of...
Democracy and Communism are not the source of Big Brother. Paranoia and fear creates Big Brother--it's not an exclusively Communist ideal.
However, with power comes paranoia. Communism centralizes power (for efficiency) and in doing so gives power too quickly to one centralized body. This speeds up paranoia. Democracy is slower in its paranoia--but once it has it it holds on to it since everyone plays the game of "doing the right thing."
Eventually all methods of government will become Big Brother.
Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
I'd still support him. But he does not have a legal leg to stand on the moment a transaction is made....
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
What the government did was not legal. The people in the end decide what is legal and what is not, not our government. If we left everything to the government we'd have no freedoms. Get it? Just because the government goes "yes it's ok to spy on people" does not mean it's ok. Had this been fleshed out and actually voted on it wouldn't have gone through. Tell me how it's legal to secretly spy on people? I can't put a webcam in my neighbors house, and it's illegal for my neighbor to access my webcam. If it's illegal for him it's illegal for the government.
Well, without judging if what he did was right or not, he legally and technically is guilty of espionage I'd assume. He wanted to work at Booz Allen solely to gather information to expose, and I doubt what he exposed is ever going to be deemed "illegal" by the government anytime soon. The Irony for being guilty of espionage for revealing espionage is pretty fun...
I feel bad for this guy, despite him being a bit naive imo. Yes he exposed something very shady in governments, but I can't help but think for him personally it was just a bad idea. His life is over. Was it worth it? What he exposed doesnt shock anyone, and will change nothing. He certainly has my respect though, something I can't say about people like Manning and Assange who I've always felt whistleblew only to hear the whistle blow.
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
I'd still support him. But he does not have a legal leg to stand on the moment a transaction is made....
He hardly had a legal leg with the initial leaks. He would have only been okay if courts and/or public opinion protected him by taking those NSA privileges away. If done in court, Snowden would be protected by whistleblower laws. If taken away through legislation, he may have a legal avenue, need a Congressional nod, or a Presidential pardon. Now he's screwed if he literally sold secrets.
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
I'd still support him. But he does not have a legal leg to stand on the moment a transaction is made....
He hardly had a legal leg with the initial leaks. He would have only been okay if courts and/or public opinion protected him by taking those NSA privileges away. If done in court, Snowden would be protected by whistleblower laws. If taken away through legislation, he may have a legal avenue, need a Congressional nod, or a Presidential pardon. Now he's screwed if he literally sold secrets.
That's what I mean.
When he simply gave it to everyone you could start a trial to re-evaluate privacy laws and actually discuss and argue the relevance and importance of the NSA.
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
What the government did was not legal. The people in the end decide what is legal and what is not, not our government. If we left everything to the government we'd have no freedoms. Get it? Just because the government goes "yes it's ok to spy on people" does not mean it's ok. Had this been fleshed out and actually voted on it wouldn't have gone through. Tell me how it's legal to secretly spy on people? I can't put a webcam in my neighbors house, and it's illegal for my neighbor to access my webcam. If it's illegal for him it's illegal for the government.
I must have missed the part where the government is accessing your or my webcam.
On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote: Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.
He dug his own grave.
I'd still support him. But he does not have a legal leg to stand on the moment a transaction is made....
He hardly had a legal leg with the initial leaks. He would have only been okay if courts and/or public opinion protected him by taking those NSA privileges away. If done in court, Snowden would be protected by whistleblower laws. If taken away through legislation, he may have a legal avenue, need a Congressional nod, or a Presidential pardon. Now he's screwed if he literally sold secrets.
That's what I mean.
When he simply gave it to everyone you could start a trial to re-evaluate privacy laws and actually discuss and argue the relevance and importance of the NSA.
On June 26 2013 07:25 darkness wrote: Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
The problem is not the system, the problem is what happens to people within a system.
The problem is that no system is adaptive enough to keep up with a change in preference.
Democracy will be loved, until its not.
I think adapting has nothing to do with freedom which is often synonym of democracy. Thus said, it's hilarious how USA and UK pretend to be anti-communist, while playing the Big Brother role at the same time. Example of USA (Snowden's case) and of UK (CCTV everywhere).
Well sort of...
Democracy and Communism are not the source of Big Brother. Paranoia and fear creates Big Brother--it's not an exclusively Communist ideal.
However, with power comes paranoia. Communism centralizes power (for efficiency) and in doing so gives power too quickly to one centralized body. This speeds up paranoia. Democracy is slower in its paranoia--but once it has it it holds on to it since everyone plays the game of "doing the right thing."
Eventually all methods of government will become Big Brother.
Democracy and Communism are not in opposition. One is a system of decision making whereas the other is an economic system of class elimination. Communist societies do not need to be totalitarian; in fact, lots of modern communists assert that democracy is integral to any communist society, as is voluntarism.
On June 26 2013 07:25 darkness wrote: Snowden's case shows democracy is complete bullshit at this century, but dictatorship is even worse... maybe someone should come up with a new political system?
The problem is not the system, the problem is what happens to people within a system.
The problem is that no system is adaptive enough to keep up with a change in preference.
Democracy will be loved, until its not.
I think adapting has nothing to do with freedom which is often synonym of democracy. Thus said, it's hilarious how USA and UK pretend to be anti-communist, while playing the Big Brother role at the same time. Example of USA (Snowden's case) and of UK (CCTV everywhere).
Well sort of...
Democracy and Communism are not the source of Big Brother. Paranoia and fear creates Big Brother--it's not an exclusively Communist ideal.
However, with power comes paranoia. Communism centralizes power (for efficiency) and in doing so gives power too quickly to one centralized body. This speeds up paranoia. Democracy is slower in its paranoia--but once it has it it holds on to it since everyone plays the game of "doing the right thing."
Eventually all methods of government will become Big Brother.
Democracy and Communism are not in opposition. One is a system of decision making whereas the other is an economic system of class elimination. Communist societies do not need to be totalitarian; in fact, lots of modern communists assert that democracy is integral to any communist society, as is voluntarism.
That is true as well.
I was mostly discussing the communist regimes he was obviously alluding to.
But yes, communism and democracy are not opposed with one another.
It's funny that Glenn Greenwald ended up being one of those people that now has the authority to disclose top secret information. It must be a dangerous power to have for a transparency advocate.
I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.
On June 26 2013 09:52 furymonkey wrote: Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.
What I really find disgusting is how much time, effort, and focus is being used on trying to capture this guy in relation to how little time, effort, and focus is being used to take a long hard look at this and fix this horrible and corrupt system.
On June 26 2013 10:00 Cereb wrote: What I really find disgusting is how much time, effort, and focus is being used on trying to capture this guy in relation to how little time, effort, and focus is being used to take a long hard look at this and fix this horrible and corrupt system.
Some (powerful) people may like the system to be this way, so there is little reason for them to change it imho.
On June 26 2013 09:52 furymonkey wrote: Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.
On June 26 2013 10:00 Cereb wrote: What I really find disgusting is how much time, effort, and focus is being used on trying to capture this guy in relation to how little time, effort, and focus is being used to take a long hard look at this and fix this horrible and corrupt system.
Who is spending effort to catch him? The same organization that deems this program legal... SURPRISE!
On June 26 2013 09:52 furymonkey wrote: Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.
So basically Niemöller's "First they came...".
Oh please, do we bring up such idea over the fact that people aren't going apeshit over companies using a person's browsing history to tailor the ads they see for money? Do you see people going haywire over Google's ability to select ads based on the user's e-mails in Gmail?
Snowden does the "right" thing stays in the US, he would be "mysteriously" killed in a car accident, faced horrific treatment and execution, maybe taken to Gitmo. He did the smart thing. Russia knows that he doesn't deserve to be tortured or killed, Putin knows what would happen, this is for the greater good of mankind.
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
This is a very complicated and delicate problem. It's not that he is a whistleblower but rather the manner in which he did it is the problem. One the other hand, there is also the question of why he had to go to the press instead of his own chain or DOJ (and I think we all know the answer to this now). There is no credible report yet that Snowden has shared any of the classified information with the enemies of US.
So now, we have a nightmarish foreign policy dilemma. Obama administration sure is looking like a fool at the moment. Personally, I'm glad that more and more press are beginning to realize what a clown fool this president is.
On June 26 2013 11:34 jellyjello wrote: So now, we have a nightmarish foreign policy dilemma. Obama administration sure is looking like a fool at the moment. Personally, I'm glad that more and more press are beginning to realize what a clown fool this president is.
Really? That's where you're going with this? The bottom line is he had no authority to release any information he had to the press. Is it really espionage? Not in the strictest sense, but you cannot say that the release of this information hasn't been helpful to the enemies of the United States. Good luck proving it in court though without releasing more classified information.
Also, jellyjello, could you be more of a tool please?
radscorpion be that as it may, the system of checks and balances and public scrutiny is somewhat predicated on a degree of transparency, i.e being aware of it.
As far as I'm aware apart from the members of the Security Committee, even Congress members were not aware of the extent of this programme. So in essence a small subsection of Congress OK something, without public knowledge and all the process is vetted by FISA, also behind closed doors.
I mean, it's a delicate balance between public scrutiny and national security concerns that has to be struck. I'm not so sure the balance was there with PRISM as it was operating prior to exposure.
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
You do make a point, but I think that if that is what people think then it could lead to dire consequences in the future. The problem with a slippery slope is once it starts, its almost impossible to come back the other way. Think of it like global warming, whether you believe in it or not, none of us really wants to do anything until we actually start seeing large chunks of the population being wiped out by natural disasters, problem is by then its already too late.
These issues need to be resolved before they become a real issue. Remove the poverty aspect and this situation is not at all that different from 1984, if Winston had acted normal like the rest of the population there wouldn't be much of a story and you would have thought the system wasn't that bad at all. What happened to Winston is much like what is happening to Manning or going to happen to Snowden.
There are many cases of innocent people being arrested for thought crimes, yes. Its not hard to find an article about a person who was minding his own business in his own home only to have law enforcement smash down the front door for a crime he didn't commit, nor was it an actual crime, it was a thought crime.
Know that the reason you haven't been arrested is because of the herd aspect, the law enforcement can't arrest everybody, so there are "token" arrests in which people that are arrested for thought crimes become an example to scare everyone. You just haven't been one of the ones that have been unlucky to be chosen.
Whistle-blowing is not against the law. If he did what he did for any other business he would simply be fired. However if a business was ever in control of the law and law enforcement then things would be hugely different and that is the problem.
We should be free to say whatever we want without fear of persecution, right now it seems that a lot of people are being wrongfully imprisoned for doing just this.
The US at least, now no longer permits free speech, and that is a big deal. If the laws don't permit free speech, then it should be changed.. On top of this, we now have a big brother looking out for more "Winstons".
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
Do you think if there were cases of them abusing this power and ruining US citizen's lives with it...that you would actually hear about it publicly?
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
That's the question, isn't it? Is this Constitutional? See, legality has nothing to do with it if the laws in question aren't Constitutional themselves. The laws themselves then become illegal, so the action taken under them follows suit.
There's this pretty little piece of paper known as the Bill of Rights that was stuck on the end of the Constitution, and the fourth Amendment to that bill is what this is violating. I just pray the courts uphold that ideal, if this is ever allowed to get to court.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
Do you think if there were cases of them abusing this power and ruining US citizen's lives with it...that you would actually hear about it publicly?
You might, but it gets labeled in the bin with the nutjobs and government hating conspiracy theorists.
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 11:07 teddyoojo wrote:
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
You do make a point, but I think that if that is what people think then it could lead to dire consequences in the future. The problem with a slippery slope is once it starts, its almost impossible to come back the other way. Think of it like global warming, whether you believe in it or not, none of us really wants to do anything until we actually start seeing large chunks of the population being wiped out by natural disasters, problem is by then its already too late.
These issues need to be resolved before they become a real issue. Remove the poverty aspect and this situation is not at all that different from 1984, if Winston had acted normal like the rest of the population there wouldn't be much of a story and you would have thought the system wasn't that bad at all. What happened to Winston is much like what is happening to Manning or going to happen to Snowden.
There are many cases of innocent people being arrested for thought crimes, yes. Its not hard to find an article about a person who was minding his own business in his own home only to have law enforcement smash down the front door for a crime he didn't commit, nor was it an actual crime, it was a thought crime.
Know that the reason you haven't been arrested is because of the herd aspect, the law enforcement can't arrest everybody, so there are "token" arrests in which people that are arrested for thought crimes become an example to scare everyone. You just haven't been one of the ones that have been unlucky to be chosen.
Whistle-blowing is not against the law. If he did what he did for any other business he would simply be fired. However if a business was ever in control of the law and law enforcement then things would be hugely different and that is the problem.
We should be free to say whatever we want without fear of persecution, right now it seems that a lot of people are being wrongfully imprisoned for doing just this.
The US at least, now no longer permits free speech, and that is a big deal. If the laws don't permit free speech, then it should be changed.. On top of this, we now have a big brother looking out for more "Winstons".
This is not about the free speech. He had classified information and ran with it to the press without a proper authorization.
On June 26 2013 02:55 floor exercise wrote: I don't think he didn't not guiltify himself of espionage but if he didn't or did it was for the greater good of humanity
This has to be one of the worst attempts at an intelligent comment I've seen on TL.
What he did was a good thing but I wouldn't be surprised if he's found guilty.
I've actually heard a couple legitimate concern. My friend is afraid that if the NSA can do this, that in future elections, the director of the agency could just pull up shit on the other parties runners. While it would receive backlash, it could change people's minds depending on what is found. While it seems like paranoia, like the 1984 theorists, this is actually highly possible.
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
Terrorism is hugely overblown. There've been only 33 terrorism-related deaths in the US since 9/11. More people are struck by lightning. Its absolutely not worth giving up any of our rights.
i really dont know why peole make such a big deal about this. Companies always collected data...for so called "market research" ;-) and NSA was founded to analyze this kind of data in order to protect the US. Not a huge deal at all...Snowden basically said what everyone already knows. Just read Wikipedia...
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
They shifted/ammended the laws that governed information gathering of Americans in around 2008 I believe. How can people use as an argument "he broke the law!" to disparage Snowden when the government just changed things to make previous illegal actions legal?
Also oversight in the FISA court is suspect as it is both secret, and isn't set up like a 'court' at all.
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 11:07 teddyoojo wrote:
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
You do make a point, but I think that if that is what people think then it could lead to dire consequences in the future. The problem with a slippery slope is once it starts, its almost impossible to come back the other way. Think of it like global warming, whether you believe in it or not, none of us really wants to do anything until we actually start seeing large chunks of the population being wiped out by natural disasters, problem is by then its already too late.
These issues need to be resolved before they become a real issue. Remove the poverty aspect and this situation is not at all that different from 1984, if Winston had acted normal like the rest of the population there wouldn't be much of a story and you would have thought the system wasn't that bad at all. What happened to Winston is much like what is happening to Manning or going to happen to Snowden.
There are many cases of innocent people being arrested for thought crimes, yes. Its not hard to find an article about a person who was minding his own business in his own home only to have law enforcement smash down the front door for a crime he didn't commit, nor was it an actual crime, it was a thought crime.
Know that the reason you haven't been arrested is because of the herd aspect, the law enforcement can't arrest everybody, so there are "token" arrests in which people that are arrested for thought crimes become an example to scare everyone. You just haven't been one of the ones that have been unlucky to be chosen.
Whistle-blowing is not against the law. If he did what he did for any other business he would simply be fired. However if a business was ever in control of the law and law enforcement then things would be hugely different and that is the problem.
We should be free to say whatever we want without fear of persecution, right now it seems that a lot of people are being wrongfully imprisoned for doing just this.
The US at least, now no longer permits free speech, and that is a big deal. If the laws don't permit free speech, then it should be changed.. On top of this, we now have a big brother looking out for more "Winstons".
This is not about the free speech. He had classified information and ran with it to the press without a proper authorization.
The alternative is to never speak of it because the system would never give him the authorization to release the information. Good right?
And they are buckling down on free speech, what with highly negative comments about GG with some using inciting language and even calls for his arrest.
Don't you see how shit the argument is that something is not free speech if it's not authorized or legal under current laws? Especially when laws are amended to facilitate previously illegal operations?
On June 26 2013 14:00 cutler wrote: i really dont know why peole make such a big deal about this. Companies always collected data...for so called "market research" ;-) and NSA was founded to analyze this kind of data in order to protect the US. Not a huge deal at all...Snowden basically said what everyone already knows. Just read Wikipedia...
It was founded to analyze foreign data to protect Americans with some qualifiers as to not be so broad. Now they are just hoovering data American or Foreign alike for safe keeping until policy changes dictate the need to pull out someone's info.
It may have been known that companies gather info in order to improve their ad targeting and or their bottom line.. but did everyone really believe that all of this data and more would be given to a single sovereign entity for its discretionary use?
People called speculators like that 'crazies' or 'nutjobs', so no, it's not not a huge deal, and PRISM wasn't on wikipedia before the previous week..
On June 26 2013 13:53 omgimonfire15 wrote: I've actually heard a couple legitimate concern. My friend is afraid that if the NSA can do this, that in future elections, the director of the agency could just pull up shit on the other parties runners. While it would receive backlash, it could change people's minds depending on what is found. While it seems like paranoia, like the 1984 theorists, this is actually highly possible.
The backlash would be enormous, to the point where the US political system would be thrown into instability. The President would be thrown out of office, probably the Vice President as well, and the party affiliated would be burned for at least a decade.
having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote: I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.
I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.
I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.
All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.
It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.
Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.
On June 26 2013 11:07 teddyoojo wrote:
On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.
That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.
how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.
I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.
You do make a point, but I think that if that is what people think then it could lead to dire consequences in the future. The problem with a slippery slope is once it starts, its almost impossible to come back the other way. Think of it like global warming, whether you believe in it or not, none of us really wants to do anything until we actually start seeing large chunks of the population being wiped out by natural disasters, problem is by then its already too late.
These issues need to be resolved before they become a real issue. Remove the poverty aspect and this situation is not at all that different from 1984, if Winston had acted normal like the rest of the population there wouldn't be much of a story and you would have thought the system wasn't that bad at all. What happened to Winston is much like what is happening to Manning or going to happen to Snowden.
There are many cases of innocent people being arrested for thought crimes, yes. Its not hard to find an article about a person who was minding his own business in his own home only to have law enforcement smash down the front door for a crime he didn't commit, nor was it an actual crime, it was a thought crime.
Know that the reason you haven't been arrested is because of the herd aspect, the law enforcement can't arrest everybody, so there are "token" arrests in which people that are arrested for thought crimes become an example to scare everyone. You just haven't been one of the ones that have been unlucky to be chosen.
Whistle-blowing is not against the law. If he did what he did for any other business he would simply be fired. However if a business was ever in control of the law and law enforcement then things would be hugely different and that is the problem.
We should be free to say whatever we want without fear of persecution, right now it seems that a lot of people are being wrongfully imprisoned for doing just this.
The US at least, now no longer permits free speech, and that is a big deal. If the laws don't permit free speech, then it should be changed.. On top of this, we now have a big brother looking out for more "Winstons".
This is not about the free speech. He had classified information and ran with it to the press without a proper authorization.
On June 26 2013 14:53 samuu wrote: And some americans are still proud of their "freedom", "democracy" and their consitution.
It's not just the US though. GCHQ is doing this and the BND in Germany wants to start a similar program too. I wonder what kind of public debate you'll have about it.
On June 26 2013 14:53 samuu wrote: And some americans are still proud of their "freedom", "democracy" and their consitution.
It's not just the US though. GCHQ is doing this and the BND in Germany wants to start a similar program too. I wonder what kind of public debate you'll have about it.
And besides because most of the internet goes through the US, they are effectively spying on the entire world.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
On June 26 2013 14:53 samuu wrote: And some americans are still proud of their "freedom", "democracy" and their consitution.
It's not just the US though. GCHQ is doing this and the BND in Germany wants to start a similar program too. I wonder what kind of public debate you'll have about it.
its true that germany wanted to do something similiar, but it failed and endangered the political work of the etablished political parties to a point that they just stopped it. the last dictatorship on german soil hasnt passed for that long so there are still a good amount of people here who value freedom.
On June 26 2013 15:21 hfglgg wrote: its true that germany wanted to do something similiar, but it failed and endangered the political work of the etablished political parties to a point that they just stopped it. the last dictatorship on german soil hasnt passed for that long so there are still a good amount of people here who value freedom.
It's true that they don't plan to store the data, which is a significant difference. But the principle that any communication with a foreign element, as well as a significant portion of domestic communication passing through foreign cables, is fair game seems to be shared by all major intelligence agencies.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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...
On June 26 2013 14:53 samuu wrote: And some americans are still proud of their "freedom", "democracy" and their consitution.
It's not just the US though. GCHQ is doing this and the BND in Germany wants to start a similar program too. I wonder what kind of public debate you'll have about it.
And besides because most of the internet goes through the US, they are effectively spying on the entire world.
True, and not just by accident either. They went after internet hubs outside the US too, as the story about hacking Chinese universities suggested.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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. At least I know there's a chance I may be punished for thought crime by the US and will have to watch what I say (nothing stopped the US from getting Assange and Kim Dotcom), which is just dumb.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
Also access of information has nothing to do with speech, you are free to hide information as much as you want. You are not allowed to commit crimes to get that information either. Nothing wrong with that.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 15:21 hfglgg wrote: its true that germany wanted to do something similiar, but it failed and endangered the political work of the etablished political parties to a point that they just stopped it. the last dictatorship on german soil hasnt passed for that long so there are still a good amount of people here who value freedom.
It's true that they don't plan to store the data, which is a significant difference. But the principle that any communication with a foreign element, as well as a significant portion of domestic communication passing through foreign cables, is fair game seems to be shared by all major intelligence agencies.
well i dont know of any new plans, but the last time they tried to save a huge amount of informations "just in case" there were protests and demonstrations (not big ones, but they were still there) and a new political party formed and got elected into multiple state parliaments making coalitions much more difficult. i would be surprised if any party is willing to get their fingers burned. especially now shortly before an election.
So what confuses the hell out me is that the following issue seems to be not discussed at all:
Apparently a lot of persons have access to the PRISM data. We know of one person who managed to distribute that data to someone unauthorized. The person who did it apparently did not do it for selfish reasons (revealing his name, giving up well paid job and family, leaking it to western press), so wasn't exactly your classical full-time spy.
Why the fuck is there no discussion about the risk PRISM poses to the national security and economy of the USA / any country? If Snowden could get the data , surely actual spies (paid by other nations) can also get that data. Traditionally spies had to collect such data themselves but with PRISM all that data is presented on a silver plate and you just need 1 person to infiltrate one of the external companies who have access to the data and you can get way more information than you could even hope to get with any other means. The Case Snowden shows that the NSA can't guarantee the safety of the data so any notion of them to "just use it vs terrorism / the bad guys" is void. It is pretty much like giving thousands of external companies employees access to your nuclear weapon arsenal.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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.
On June 26 2013 16:30 TBO wrote: So what confuses the hell out me is that the following issue seems to be not discussed at all:
Apparently a lot of persons have access to the PRISM data. We know of one person who managed to distribute that data to someone unauthorized. The person who did it apparently did not do it for selfish reasons (revealing his name, giving up well paid job and family, leaking it to western press), so wasn't exactly your classical full-time spy.
Why the fuck is there no discussion about the risk PRISM poses to the national security and economy of the USA / any country? If Snowden could get the data , surely actual spies (paid by other nations) can also get that data. Traditionally spies had to collect such data themselves but with PRISM all that data is presented on a silver plate and you just need 1 person to infiltrate one of the external companies who have access to the data and you can get way more information than you could even hope to get with any other means. The Case Snowden shows that the NSA can't guarantee the safety of the data so any notion of them to "just use it vs terrorism / the bad guys" is void. It is pretty much like giving thousands of external companies employees access to your nuclear weapon arsenal.
If this is anything like DoD work for engineers: First, you can't get that close to that information and data without being vetted by the federal government. He was required to get a very high level of security clearance, which requires you to be a natural born citizen. His family and neighbors are also questioned by federal agents. If at any point they were suspicious of him, he would have lost the clearance (and probably his job).
Second, his ability to do much of the stuff was very limited. He said he needed authorization to access the information, meaning without it, he would have quickly been found out. Obviously, no system is perfect, but this is definitely more of a case of an employee going rogue more than that of a huge security breach due to a flaw.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
The guy seems like a completely reasonable dude, and I feel really, really bad for him in that his life is probably to all intents and purposes over now thanks to standing up for what he felt was right.
If the government had any sense it would extend a semi armistice and say' look, you felt you had to do this shit, we gotta show people that isn't on. We're going to lock you up, because that's the law, but we also respect you and won't put you in the alcatraz or something. residency in a good estate with the ability to work on good works.
One day you see a band of famished, armed men. In exchange for food, they will protect your house. You both make an agreement not to enter each others' rooms during the arrangement. The armed men have you cleaning their weapons, which you voluntarily agree to do, because you thought it would be cool, and they said they'd teach you how to handle the weapon. One day, your mom can't find her fountain pen that she always keeps in her room. While you're cleaning the men's weapons, they ask you to hand them their bag. As you do you notice your mom's fountain pen in the bag and a conversation between two other men about how they stole the pen. You show the pen to your mom. The men find out about it and argue that both parties agreed not to steal from each other and that you violated that agreement when you took the pen which rightfully belonged to your mom. They say you should be punished... their way.
OBVIOUSLY the men are the ones who breached the agreement when the whole home-staying arrangement was made from the beginning (constitution).
Wouldn't it be convenient if you had all the power and weapons, and then you made it "illegal" for anyone to expose your crimes? You focus on exactly what's convenient for you, creating a double standard for yourself and others. give me a break. there is no debate here. Only education of minds so they don't fall prey to obvious obvious propaganda.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
From a purely logical standpoint, if the government had some campaign to initiate a dictatorship through control of the army and someone who was in on it became a whistle-blower and stopped the movement, do you believe he should be thrown in jail?
Also would you still label the person a @#$%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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
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. Is that really what we want?
Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
On June 26 2013 15:40 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Then I guess America has NEVER had free speech, with the First Amendment and all have rules on free speech... ;_;
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.
Nothing 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!)
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.
Nothing 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy is sort of like a Freudian slip, since this analogy was first concocted by the government as a justification for imprisoning pacifists by saying that the First Amendment doesn't protect your right to express your opinion that one should not kill other human beings.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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!
On June 26 2013 17:38 D10 wrote: Americans should just accept that they will never be safe, and that you cant sacrifice freedom for security without losing both.
Cool quote dude! Sadly it's kind of meaningless. Many "freedoms" are sacrificed for the name of security the world over, and neither are lost. The real question is how far can you push it. The internet is a relatively new thing, and the ways it relates to government and privacy is a murky issue that needs boundaries set. Hopefully this new info will lead to a discussion of it, or at least more transparency.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
It's not necessarily about us. Information is power, especially now. Technically the US government could spy on any other company in the world, read emails and listen to skype calls of Europeans Leaders and so on. How is that fair ? : D
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
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.
Nothing 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.
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 18:07 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".
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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?"
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.
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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?"
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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?"
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 18:07 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.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
They are also legally bound by the NSA to deny that. Are you really that naive ?
What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Doesn't espionage have to do with being or using spies? If he was a spy who was he working for and to what end? To release information about the US Govt spying on its own people? lol.
Could be classed as sabotage I guess by informing the public, but whistle blower protection laws should still take precedence.
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? [...]
Well, what I think doesn't matter, the hypothetical guy would probably face North Korean justice. The last part of my message was indeed not really serious (hints: "manly", "fleeing", "badass", "an hero"). Here in France it would have been quite funny if all French Resistants suddenly decided to be "manly" and surrender. Funny indeed.
Seriously though, I think Snowden can be called both traitor and hero. Traitor to the US government, hero to the US people, maybe? It's actually quite frightening that some random guy can just leak US confidential documents like that.
Besides I'm not entirely convinced that this PRISM thing is 100% bad anyway.
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.
If he goes back to America they'll detain him until everyone forgets and then they'll execute him. People are obviously outraged by the information he's released but they'll forget over time so I doubt enough pressure could ever be put on the US government to release him. Look at Bradley Manning he still hasn't been released and his situation is similar although I guess what he did would be considered worse by the US government.
Also their efforts to catch him are a publicity disaster so far. China have basically spat in the USA's face by letting him leave their country after being told not to, and I doubt Russia will give him up either. And it's not like they can really portray him as a traiter either, he might technically be one but he certainly hasn't betrayed general population.
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
No, Prism affects all Western countries. And proof that most Americans approve of what NSA is doing? Last time I heard the approval rating was at about 30%.
Its a paradox because the only reason you think he's a bad person is because of the content of the results. If he leaked government information that directly affected your values (like if the US government was gonna drop an A-bomb on its own people), you would think he's a hero. Even though the "crime" was exactly the same.
It doesn't make any sense, if Snowden had that much invested into espionage why the hell would he leak the documents public and screw himself over instead of just telling the Chinese in secret?
A real spy wouldn't leak information to the public. The only people accusing him of being a spy is the government, and no shit Sherlock, they need to have a reason to imprison him and reduce public resistance so they don't get voted out next election.
By that logic Julian Assange must be a Ecuadorian spy then because people want him prosecuted by the espionage act and he went and hid in the Embassy of Ecuador.
On June 26 2013 19:41 pyrogenetix wrote: What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Damn, you'd make a GREAT leader with completely happy citizens and government employees /sarcasm.
The point that interests me is the one brought up in the first few pages, legality vs constitutionality. From what I gather from this thread, the NSA wasn't doing anything illegal, although ultimately it could be deemed so if the laws they were working from are deemed unconstitutional?
I assume this debate would be much more one-sided if what the NSA were doing was illegal already; so what *would* be the correct procedure if an NSA employee believed the NSA was being thoroughly unconstitutional? Go through official channels? I assume that would be shut down before it even started. Then what?
It's not a huge suprise to me that the u.s goverment is spying on all of these big internet sites. Everything that you do on the internet is accesible by the goverment. But we all gotta deal with it anyway. That's the price we pay for living in the 21'st century.
On June 26 2013 19:41 pyrogenetix wrote: What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Damn, you'd make a GREAT leader with completely happy citizens and government employees /sarcasm.
I know bro, thanks. Too bad they don't need me, there are already so many GREAT leaders in key positions creating a better world for happy citizens and government employees. You live in that HAPPY world.
On June 26 2013 19:41 pyrogenetix wrote: What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Damn, you'd make a GREAT leader with completely happy citizens and government employees /sarcasm.
I know bro, thanks. Too bad they don't need me, there are already so many GREAT leaders in key positions creating a better world for happy citizens and government employees. You live in that HAPPY world.
It's easy to hate on the government. Yeah, the US government has done a lot of sketchy things in the past. However, leaks like this really say a lot about the insecurity of the US. Of course, the US government is in the right to be angry as hell to see a lot of disloyal employees. Plus, as a superpower, US has a huge responsibility of maintaining national security because you have to stay on the top while dealing with competitors and haters.
As for Snowden, he is not guilty of epsionage yet. BUT why in the world would he bring his work laptop during his extradition? Before we argue about the constitutionality of certain actions and policies, we should consider the technical consequences of them. So far, Snowden has not done anything spectacular for the US or its people (for your information, the right to privacy is an IMPLIED right not an enumerated right in the US constitution).
EDIT: I read some people's posts, and I can see why people respect what this guy did. But still we'll have to see whether his actions will change the political course. Also, calling him a hero is a bit much in my opinion. This is not a movie, people!
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Do you have something to hide?
Yes, this thing called "privacy".
So its okay that banks, hospitals, schools, internet companies, house contractors, etc know your private information and what you do but not the government? The government still technically keeps your privacy by not disclosing your personal information. When they start disclosing that, its a breach of privacy. Maybe i'm crazy buy i'm fine with the idea the government knows everything about me as long as they don't tell people. I mean, I don't think i'm doing anything wrong. What do you and I possibly have to hide that's so damaging?
Those insitutions are called "institutions of public trust" (I believe that's the right name in English) for a reason. If they use your private information in any way not absolutely necessary to provide the services you requested from them, and possibly harm you that way, they are breaking the law, as far as I know.
The US government has a long history of kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people (lots of people have been kept in Guantanamo and such with no sign of a trial - innocent until proven guilty, remember?) or even outright killing (i.e. murdering) them, as well as starting wars for dubious reasons, sponsoring terrorists, assasinating various people (including important politicians), inspiring and supporting coup d'etats, etc. What's more, the US government has a history of oppressing its citizens for various reasons. Take the FBI documents regarding Martin Luther King, for example.
"After the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, King was singled out as a major target for COINTELPRO. Under pressure from Hoover to focus not simply on communist infiltration of the civil rights movement, but on King specifically, Sullivan wrote: "In the light of King's powerful demagogic speech. . . . We must mark him now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security."[17] Soon after, the FBI was systematically bugging King's home and his hotel rooms"
You can even find documents where FBI officials are considering assasinating him, if I remember correctly. There's also a ton of racial slurs in there.
Recently, the US government has a record of breaching its citizens' privacy in numerous ways in order to mitigate the threat of terrorism it is responsible for itself (yes, terrorism is mainly a result of the American foreign policy).
In this light, trusting the US government seems very naive to me.
We have a saying in Poland: socialism bravely fights with problems unknown in other forms of government.
It's easy to get him, just lable him as a terrorist and send him to guantanamo!
No trial, no lawyers, no judges, no interviews, no nothing.. just time for people to forget him and US spying on the intire world..
I will try and walk away from all the US internet service providers, not because i have anything to hide, but because it's wrong..
What happens when for instance, politicians use the prism to spy on their rivals? Companys having access to their rivals info's.. etc..
Too much power and information will lead to abuse.. always have and always will.. just look at USA's foreign policies today and now imagine what they can do if they know all the dirty secrets of everybody..
not even their "friends" will have any chance at a fair discussion..
USA is now the most policed state in the world.. too bad for the freedom country!
Maybe i'm crazy buy i'm fine with the idea the government knows everything about me as long as they don't tell people. I mean, I don't think i'm doing anything wrong. What do you and I possibly have to hide that's so damaging?
I went to the spanish revolution protests. I was there during the alternative demonstration of the 1st of March. I have read the wikipedia page on atomic bombs, several times. I have knowledge of physics and chemistry. I have extensively researched the fate of bin Laden, as well as the 9/11 attacks. Etc etc.
Should I be worried that the goverment knows all of this of me? Did I do anything illegal, or something that I would have to hide? The answer at the moment is NO, and the proof is that I have yet to be abducted from my bed at 4 in the morning by guys wearing black masks. But will it be ok 20 years from now? In 5 years? In the next change of government? I don't know. But it takes just one leader with enough fascist or tyrant inclinations to start using these kind of information against some of the citizens, their family or their friends. In Turkey people were already abducted by the government over Facebook and Twitter posts.
So no, it is NOT ok for the goverment to collect and store this information on me, without my consent, without even legislation of what can or can not be done with that information. It is NOT ok for Google and Microsoft and Apple to pass whatever information they have on me to the goverment in a sistematic manner, disregarding my privacy and my right to be innocent until proven guilty. This is why we have to do everything possible to stop this from going on.
He could have sold the information, kept his job and his life, and been dirty rich. Instead, he throws that all away to try to help his countrymen. Not exactly the smartest thing to do, but it's certainly not espionage.
On June 26 2013 19:41 pyrogenetix wrote: What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Damn, you'd make a GREAT leader with completely happy citizens and government employees /sarcasm.
I know bro, thanks. Too bad they don't need me, there are already so many GREAT leaders in key positions creating a better world for happy citizens and government employees. You live in that HAPPY world.
It's always amazing to me seeing people from nations like China rag on America as if its somehow not one of the better places to live in the world.
On June 26 2013 19:41 pyrogenetix wrote: What's funny is that the American government with all their insane military funding couldn't find a tech support guy and pay him enough money to keep him quiet. If I was in charge I would just pay him ungodly amounts of money and make sure that if he leaked any info he would lose all that money, so that he would not leak any information because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the cons. I would also have a very strict screening process for employing people at that level of security.
US military spending check it -
Seriously if you think your government isn't already accessing every minute detail of your internet activity then you are living in rainbows and unicorns land. The fact that the American government is letting shit like this happen again and again is extremely unprofessional. Now he has too much media coverage so they have to let it die down before killing him, that is if they think doing so has any value any more. Russian KGB, British SS and Chinese MSS must be laughing their asses off calling them a bunch of fucking noobs at this game.
Damn, you'd make a GREAT leader with completely happy citizens and government employees /sarcasm.
I know bro, thanks. Too bad they don't need me, there are already so many GREAT leaders in key positions creating a better world for happy citizens and government employees. You live in that HAPPY world.
It's always amazing to me seeing people from nations like China rag on America as if its somehow not one of the better places to live in the world.
Not that I'm raggin on the US as a whole but it's the US govt I'm targeting for their epic blunders. Whether a place offers a better quality of life is pretty much up to the resident isn't it? Eye of the beholder and that shit? I would argue that the Scandinavian countries outperform the US. I would also argue that being in the middle/upper class is much better if you live in so called "shitty places" simply because of PPP.
No definitely I agree that the CN govt also has their fair share of idiots and gigantic corruption is rampant, but at least the rate at which it is improving is impressive. If you look at China 10 years ago and compare it to today, things like health care and public insurance has made great strides. Let's not forget China's population is 4 times the US, and China is still a developing country if you look at comparative figures like GDP/capita.
The main difference is the political structure of the two countries but that's another story. I was just poking fun at how something like this leaked out despite the vast amount of money being pumped into their military every year. I cannot help but think that the people sitting at key positions are extremely inadequate. If that is the case then yes the US has every reason to fear China's meteoric rise.
It's not about IF we are being fucked by the govt, it's about do we KNOW we are being fucked by our govt.
Actually, Obama has the legal mandate to bomb the terminal Snowden is in. Everyone dying alongside him are just collateral damage like thousands that died as collateral damage in drone strikes before them. No questions asked.
It's not possible as long as he is in Russia and he isn't going to do it because of all the media attention. But US citizens have been assassinated, along with children that happened to be at the same place at the wrong time, for less (Al Awlaki).
On June 26 2013 23:55 Komei wrote: Actually, Obama has the legal mandate to bomb the terminal Snowden is in. Everyone dying alongside him are just collateral damage like thousands that died as collateral damage in drone strikes before them. No questions asked.
It's not possible as long as he is in Russia and he isn't going to do it because of all the media attention. But US citizens have been assassinated, along with children that happened to be at the same place at the wrong time, for less (Al Awlaki).
I dont think Obama wants an all out war with the biggest nuclear power after the US.
On June 26 2013 21:00 hansonslee wrote: It's easy to hate on the government. Yeah, the US government has done a lot of sketchy things in the past. However, leaks like this really say a lot about the insecurity of the US. Of course, the US government is in the right to be angry as hell to see a lot of disloyal employees. Plus, as a superpower, US has a huge responsibility of maintaining national security because you have to stay on the top while dealing with competitors and haters.
As for Snowden, he is not guilty of epsionage yet. BUT why in the world would he bring his work laptop during his extradition? Before we argue about the constitutionality of certain actions and policies, we should consider the technical consequences of them. So far, Snowden has not done anything spectacular for the US or its people (for your information, the right to privacy is an IMPLIED right not an enumerated right in the US constitution).
EDIT: I read some people's posts, and I can see why people respect what this guy did. But still we'll have to see whether his actions will change the political course. Also, calling him a hero is a bit much in my opinion. This is not a movie, people!
No, movies usually end with biased endings pre selected by a bunch of corporate hats, while in reality things are much more interesting.
Take our example and take it to the streets, the goverment should not be persecuting reporters, and in the end thats what guys like julian assange and snowden are, people whistleblowing what the evil corporate big brother govt is doing.
How can anyone support the actions of the most tyrannical democracy in the world is beyond me.
On June 26 2013 21:00 hansonslee wrote: It's easy to hate on the government. Yeah, the US government has done a lot of sketchy things in the past. However, leaks like this really say a lot about the insecurity of the US. Of course, the US government is in the right to be angry as hell to see a lot of disloyal employees. Plus, as a superpower, US has a huge responsibility of maintaining national security because you have to stay on the top while dealing with competitors and haters.
As for Snowden, he is not guilty of epsionage yet. BUT why in the world would he bring his work laptop during his extradition? Before we argue about the constitutionality of certain actions and policies, we should consider the technical consequences of them. So far, Snowden has not done anything spectacular for the US or its people (for your information, the right to privacy is an IMPLIED right not an enumerated right in the US constitution).
EDIT: I read some people's posts, and I can see why people respect what this guy did. But still we'll have to see whether his actions will change the political course. Also, calling him a hero is a bit much in my opinion. This is not a movie, people!
No, movies usually end with biased endings pre selected by a bunch of corporate hats, while in reality things are much more interesting.
Take our example and take it to the streets, the goverment should not be persecuting reporters, and in the end thats what guys like julian assange and snowden are, people whistleblowing what the evil corporate big brother govt is doing.
How can anyone support the actions of the most tyrannical democracy in the world is beyond me.
Real life usually results in biased endings decided by a few corporate hats. Just look at the election cycle.
The system of undersea fiber optic cables carries 99 percent of international telecommunications. The NSA is not tapping the fiber network at the two-dozen cable landing stations in the US where overseas traffic enters the US. Instead, the agency has installed sophisticated “optical splitters” or data interceptors at major commercial exchange and switching hubs well within the shoreline. It is gathering vast amounts of information.
The explosive development of mobile and wireless devices and their ubiquity in the lives of the vast majority of the world’s population make it possible for sinister operations within the state to gather details about each individual’s everyday activities for repressive purposes.
On June 26 2013 23:55 Komei wrote: Actually, Obama has the legal mandate to bomb the terminal Snowden is in. Everyone dying alongside him are just collateral damage like thousands that died as collateral damage in drone strikes before them. No questions asked.
It's not possible as long as he is in Russia and he isn't going to do it because of all the media attention. But US citizens have been assassinated, along with children that happened to be at the same place at the wrong time, for less (Al Awlaki).
I dont think Obama wants an all out war with the biggest nuclear power after the US.
It's about Obama's kill list, not about relations with Russia.
On June 26 2013 03:56 omgimonfire15 wrote: Honest question: Why does this matter so much? I can see how everyone is scared its going to turn into 1984 but do you honestly think that's gonna happen with today's society and the level of globalized connectedness? Also, why are people so worried about what the government knows? Do you have something to hide? I honestly don't care that a random guy in the government knows what I do online, even if it is inappropriate. I don't care that they know who I call and what I text people. The only way I would have a problem with it is if they started making all the records public and started persecuting based on the information unequally (like if they charge only some people for pirating and let others go for instance).
Also, why are so many people surprised by this? Yeah we see it in movies and videogames but did you really think it was that far from the truth that there are people that are capable of hacking into every aspect of your life and retrieving your data? Also, do you really think America's the only one that's doing this? I would not be surprised if every industrialized country had some sort of espionage like this.
Okay then. May I have your personal medical history, browsing history, employment history...?
On June 26 2013 14:48 czylu wrote: having released government secrets to the chinese government, hell yes he's a @#$%ing spy. It's not like this is a new thing either. The same exact controversy played out in 2007 and we already decided that the gov can do this.
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.
No, Prism affects all Western countries. And proof that most Americans approve of what NSA is doing? Last time I heard the approval rating was at about 30%.
Its a paradox because the only reason you think he's a bad person is because of the content of the results. If he leaked government information that directly affected your values (like if the US government was gonna drop an A-bomb on its own people), you would think he's a hero. Even though the "crime" was exactly the same.
It doesn't make any sense, if Snowden had that much invested into espionage why the hell would he leak the documents public and screw himself over instead of just telling the Chinese in secret?
A real spy wouldn't leak information to the public. The only people accusing him of being a spy is the government, and no shit Sherlock, they need to have a reason to imprison him and reduce public resistance so they don't get voted out next election.
By that logic Julian Assange must be a Ecuadorian spy then because people want him prosecuted by the espionage act and he went and hid in the Embassy of Ecuador.
Prism only affects the domestic US. Any connection to any other country is based on cooperation b/w their goverment to access the NSA database for their OWN spying purposes. Prism is a program used to spy DOMESTICALLY, using the data of DOMESTIC companies(not the NSA's problem if people from other countries use american products).
Lastly, you can't take everything Snowden has said @ face value, you always have to consider the diplomacy and politics behind it. I guarantee you that Snowden has not revealed all the information he had, and probably would have never revealed that China was being hacked if it weren't for the fact his pleas for asylum in Hong Kong(a highly desirable metropolis living location) were outright rejected. I would speculate that China was willing to send him back to the US, if it weren't for the fact that he released information to the public, essentially forcing China's hand. And no, Julian Assange did not leak any actual information, he is just the information broker. It is a completely different situation and scenario. I actually have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Assange, and I feel he has been wrong persecuted/accused because of his good work. I can't say the same for Snowden or Bradley Manning. In the case of Snowden, he's basically leaking secret government tactics to the world, while bradley manning is a dumbass who basically leaked confidential government cables that did not reveal anything illicit(with his access, i'm sure he could've released some CIA files instead of embassy cables).
As for your explanation of a paradox. That is not a paradox. That is something along the lines of patriotism or nationalism. Your sensationalist examples are unrealistic and irrelevant.
On June 27 2013 07:19 GnoM wrote: It depends on what he have done with the information. But from the little I know I have to say no, he is not guilty.
There's really only one thing that has to happen for him to lose credibility--and that is sell information.
If he doesn't sell information, then we can put him on trial for espionage and have a public discourse on the relevance and importance of dragnet surveillance that will ratify into law a precedent on how we as a nation attain and manage government intelligence.
If he sold information, then he is on trial for treason and will be given the death penalty. No discourse on government practices will be brought up since he will be on trial for treason, not for spreading of information.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
TBH I don't think US cares about him releasing the information regarding domestic espionage happening per say Certainly they were embarrassed but this conduct was largely assumed and general populace held the notion of out of sight out of mind. And really what are people going to do; stop using the internet and phone? Not to mention majority of information gathered will not be seen by a human. The US Government's concerns are two fold First; they need to set an example as they the go even slightly easy on him another guy will think well he did it and got away with it so I should too (and make money out of it) Second; they are concerned he will use extra information he has obtained to finance himself cause how else will he make money to survive in which ever country gives him asylum (if any)?
I think it shows the state of our world when we don't protect someone who shows that something is wrong. And instead of talking about what is horribly wrong here, we talk about the person who put it under our noses, and if he was wrong or right.
On an ethical level, no, what Snowden did was not wrong. He has said that he is careful in what information he releases publicly so that people are not in danger. The information he has given us is actually vital in telling us how our own governments operate. Information that should be public knowledge anyway, maybe not detailed information on how they operate, but global information and if it violates human rights/constitutions. Not just the USA, but also the European governments.
We are being painted a picture that shows that in the "free" west we are starting to live in a full big brother scenario. When we add things like the increasing disparity between rich and poor. The amount of people being incarcerated in the USA (more than any country in the world, the USA has over 25% of all people incarcerated in the world), Guantanamo bay. It all amounts to an image that does not match with what we want in our western societies.
I think the average person in the West are living very different lives/expecting very different things from the people with the money and power. I think most of us know that we are not our governments. If the US government does something bad, I don't blame a US citizen. But I do think that people have become to reluctant to defend their rights or maybe more importantly of people who need their rights defended, but don't have the power to do so.
Hell, and who knows. Maybe a post like this will upgrade me in their system to "potential radical", and they will keep an eye on me. Is this what we want in our society?
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
Can't agree more. It makes me so angry reading stuff like that. 1984 wasn't '84, but it is now.
How on earth can they justify spying on the EU government? Are they terrorists? What is going through their minds if they classify Germany as a country that's on the same level as China and Iran? What is the next thing? Germany is an attack target - am i now in the cross-hair of a drone strike launched from a military base in my own country just because i voice my disgust against the "Nobel Peace Prize winner" and his own Stasi 2.0?
BTW on topic: Snowden may be guilty of espionage but that man is a hero in my eyes and every country that's going to prosecute him should be publicly shunned. In the end, he did a great thing for the "people" of the USA and the whole world.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
So if you apply sanctions on the iran, how do you think is going to suffer? THe people are going to suffer, the iranians are going to suffer. So give me ONE reason why we shouldnt apply massive sanctions to the usa other than having to suffer a finacial loss aswell?
There is no reason to treat the usa not the same way we treat other states.
Mame jane isnt responsible for this but so is Adileh xy from iran.
It is your government that did these things, and it is the iraninian government that is doing this things. Yet the people get punished aswell.
My point is biased because your country is spying on us with no justification at all and nobody gives a fuck. And then thje usa invaded iraq and other countries calling them axis of evil yet they spy on other countires. And then you discuss if snowden is a traitor, wtf :D. THe colours on the map symbolise to what extend the usa was gathering information and surveiling it. Means the darker the colour the more emails, phone calls etc. they were spying on. SO what justification does the USA have to spy on other countries to that ridicolous extend. Imagine another country doing this... imagine the iran had the capacity to do this, the next month the american army would be invading the country.
On June 30 2013 20:25 Sokrates wrote: So if you apply sanctions on the iran, how do you think is going to suffer? THe people are going to suffer, the iranians are going to suffer. So give me ONE reason why we shouldnt apply massive sanctions to the usa other than having to suffer a finacial loss aswell?
There is no reason to treat the usa not the same way we treat other states.
Mame jane isnt responsible for this but so is Adileh xy from iran.
It is your government that did these things, and it is the iraninian government that is doing this things. Yet the people get punished aswell.
My point is biased because your country is spying on us with no justification at all and nobody gives a fuck. And then thje usa invaded iraq and other countries calling them axis of evil yet they spy on other countires. And then you discuss if snowden is a traitor, wtf :D. THe colours on the map symbolise to what extend the usa was gathering information and surveiling it. Means the darker the colour the more emails, phone calls etc. they were spying on. SO what justification does the USA have to spy on other countries to that ridicolous extend. Imagine another country doing this... imagine the iran had the capacity to do this, the next month the american army would be invading the country.
Obviously this shit is a massive casus belli. Closing the US bases in Germany would be the least id be expecting from our politicians but they are all little puppets I guess. Only naive people would be thinking this is about terrorist threats from Germany. Its massive industrial espionage. But I guess its okay. Germany is a partner 3rd class according to the US. Maybe we should rather be partners first class to China and Russia.
Sure, they "say" they need a warrant, but let's be honest here.
Oh wait, is it because the American programs are just...bigger? More expansive? Is that the metric now? Do you think Germany doesn't have intelligence programs and espionage efforts abroad as well, that are likely just as "bad" as the American version? Maybe not as large and expansive, but certainly present. Everyone does. Only difference is the American government got caught.
You are comparing that to your global espinoage? That is like comparing a 5year old to mike typson.
THe only difference is that america is doing it on a much bigger scale, and our government is fucking retarded regarding the interest of the own country. They throw out money in buckets, do you really think they have the intelligence to profit from this kind of things?
And yes the problem is they got caught, so better dont get caught and now you should suffer. Or at least next time you talk about the axis of evil you better shut up (the usa not you). Because it starts pissing off people. I always liked america even there was a lot of reason to criticize them but right now it only pisses me off.
And also it sounds like not the usa is the bad person but the stupid spy, that doesnt make sense.
The criticize russia and china for letting the guy pass and say "well our relations to china etc. are damaged after that incident." Well sounds a bit fucked up that a country lets a guy pass and then the usa steps up with a warning. LOL
That is like if someone steals your car and then he says "well i broke my fingernail when i tried to shortfuse it, you better fix that."
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification as China, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
Oh wait, is it because the American programs are just...bigger? More expansive? Is that the metric now? Do you think Germany doesn't have intelligence programs and espionage efforts abroad as well, that are likely just as "bad" as the American version? Maybe not as large and expansive, but certainly present. Everyone does. Only difference is the American government got caught.
This German program is well known and has been discussed intensively. At the end, one could argue that it has been democratically legitimized, because it is the German government spying on German citizens. The US and the UK program are not subject to the control of German institutions. Also I don't get the point of the argument. Just because somebody else is also doing something wrong means that it is ok to do so?
Yes, but the point here is that you, me, and everyone else is incapable of determining at what point does espionage become "too" much. What if the intelligence gathering was half as large? Still too big? See how silly this is? You have to base it on the legality of the actions, nothing else.
Sure, they "say" they need a warrant, but let's be honest here.
Oh wait, is it because the American programs are just...bigger? More expansive? Is that the metric now?
You probably have no idea how strict a need for warrant is here in Europe. I am kinda exaggerating but here police needs a judge signed warrant if they even want to speak to you and if they break this rule there is a media manhunt, no mercy. I am one hundred percent okay with police having access to every single part of internet conversations and stuff if they have a judge signed warrant, but otherwise I am strictly against it.
Sure, they "say" they need a warrant, but let's be honest here.
Oh wait, is it because the American programs are just...bigger? More expansive? Is that the metric now?
You probably have no idea how strict a need for warrant is here in Europe. I am kinda exaggerating but here police needs a judge signed warrant if they even want to speak to you and if they break this rule there is a media manhunt, no mercy.
I don't know what part of Europe you live in, but what you said is incredibly false for the part I live in.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
Well you got caught with your pants down. Some goes for a thief, if he doesnt get caught nobody will can punish him, you got caught.
And then it sounds so funny to me that the USA as criticizing russia and china for letting a spy pass. Oh the irony. Why cant your government not shut up? Dont you think that people get angry when they read this kind of stuff? If i was china or russia i would paint a big dick on their white house.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
oh according to the newspaper we know the reason.
Aus einer vertraulichen Klassifizierung geht hervor, dass die NSA die Bundesrepublik zwar als Partner, zugleich aber auch als Angriffsziel betrachtet. Demnach gehört Deutschland zu den sogenannten Partnern dritter Klasse.
Which roughly translates to: The NSA thinks Germany is a partner and a target for attacks at the same time. Germany is classified as a 3rd class partner.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
add to that that it's apperently, like you said, amount of data gathered and not per capita. So obviously a country like Germany will look more into the reddish (or yellow-ish) simply due to population. Add to that that the US still has a shitton of soldiers over here.
I don't get why people are suprised about this at all.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
add to that that it's apperently, like you said, amount of data gathered and not per capita. So obviously a country like Germany will look more into the reddish (or yellow-ish) simply due to population. Add to that that the US still has a shitton of soldiers over here.
I don't get why people are suprised about this at all.
Thats why germany is two categories more reddish than france, makes sense. Oh wait it doesnt.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
Whatever, just accept that the recent events have given the rest of the world another reason to dislike your country.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
add to that that it's apperently, like you said, amount of data gathered and not per capita. So obviously a country like Germany will look more into the reddish (or yellow-ish) simply due to population. Add to that that the US still has a shitton of soldiers over here.
I don't get why people are suprised about this at all.
Thats why germany is two categories more reddish than france, makes sense. Oh wait it doesnt.
I said I'm not suprised about it, that's all I said. (Obviously) No comment about wether it makes sense or wether I like it was made, that's just pointless anyways.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
add to that that it's apperently, like you said, amount of data gathered and not per capita. So obviously a country like Germany will look more into the reddish (or yellow-ish) simply due to population. Add to that that the US still has a shitton of soldiers over here.
I don't get why people are suprised about this at all.
Thats why germany is two categories more reddish than france, makes sense. Oh wait it doesnt.
I said I'm not suprised about it, that's all I said. (Obviously) No comment about wether it makes sense or wether I like it was made, that's just pointless anyways.
I guess this whole thing about Snowden turns in the wrong direction.
First of all my opinion on internet observation is that is it justified and should be done. The people who thing, that the internet is a place where everyone can do whatever he wants are stupid. The internet observation is damaging our human rights? Don´t make me laugh. The internet is none other place than any country where a lot of people come together with a lot of different intents. The internet provides a strong potential for crime because of it´s anonymity. Internet mobbing, cost traps, child pornography just to talk about a few ones. In my opinion there should also be laws and punishment for people who commit crimes in the internet. I don´t have a problem when everything I do in the internet is recorded, I especially would suggest using your identity card to connect to the internet should be a must. It´s not like my neighbor or friends can see my activities in the internet and as long as you don´t have any evil intend, there shouldn´t be a problem with identifying yourself.
The big thing about this whole story is probably, because the governments did that without the notice of the citizens. That leads me to another point. I don´t thing Swoden should be arrested because he published state secrets because in my opinion there shouldn´t be any state secrets to begin with. The government is always talking about how to guard citizens from terrorism and danger, but who is guarding the citizens from their own governments? The actions of the governments are not as transparent as they should be in a democratic country. It should be easily accessible for every citizen what his country is using it´s money for and what is planned by the country and there should be an organization who´s task it would be to control the government and make regular and irregular inspections.
In my opinion only if these 2 points are accomplished, it is possible to create a more safe world, where nobody should be afraid of terrorism or their own government anymore. But I think that´s just a utopia from me, because both the government and the citizens seem to be too stupid to know what needs to be done and everyone gets fired up when their "rights" are in danger. I´m not talking about that human rights are a bad thing and i strongly approve it, but if especially these human rights danger the human rights of other people then they are not justified at all.
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. And it better stays that way, i don't need a country in which people get 8 years for trolling in LoL to monitor my actions. I don't need the US to do anything for me, in fact, if they'd stop all their global actions right now, the world would be a better place, with not even half the wars. How about that?
It doesn't create a safe world to be a glass-citizen, what it creates is a police-state on a whole new level. You can't stop terrorism, you just make it harder. What you describe is not utopia but dystopia.
Edit: oh, and i do think Snowden should be arrested on US soil, because he didn't only warn US citizens, but made the EU aware of the bs too. That said, i'd love to see him seeking asylum in germany. I wonder if the US would still act like they did against ecuador.
Edit2: and just to vent a bit: i was for Obama. To have this shitstorm right after he basically lied into german citizens faces like two weeks ago, you'd need some balls for that.
On June 30 2013 21:18 Sianos wrote: I guess this whole thing about Snowden turns in the wrong direction.
First of all my opinion on internet observation is that is it justified and should be done. The people who thing, that the internet is a place where everyone can do whatever he wants are stupid. The internet observation is damaging our human rights? Don´t make me laugh. The internet is none other place than any country where a lot of people come together with a lot of different intents. The internet provides a strong potential for crime because of it´s anonymity. Internet mobbing, cost traps, child pornography just to talk about a few ones. In my opinion there should also be laws and punishment for people who commit crimes in the internet. I don´t have a problem when everything I do in the internet is recorded, I especially would suggest using your identity card to connect to the internet should be a must. It´s not like my neighbor or friends can see my activities in the internet and as long as you don´t have any evil intend, there shouldn´t be a problem with identifying yourself.
The big thing about this whole story is probably, because the governments did that without the notice of the citizens. That leads me to another point. I don´t thing Swoden should be arrested because he published state secrets because in my opinion there shouldn´t be any state secrets to begin with. The government is always talking about how to guard citizens from terrorism and danger, but who is guarding the citizens from their own governments? The actions of the governments are not as transparent as they should be in a democratic country. It should be easily accessible for every citizen what his country is using it´s money for and what is planned by the country and there should be an organization who´s task it would be to control the government and make regular and irregular inspections.
In my opinion only if these 2 points are accomplished, it is possible to create a more safe world, where nobody should be afraid of terrorism or their own government anymore. But I think that´s just a utopia from me, because both the government and the citizens seem to be too stupid to know what needs to be done and everyone gets fired up when their "rights" are in danger. I´m not talking about that human rights are a bad thing and i strongly approve it, but if especially these human rights danger the human rights of other people then they are not justified at all.
Most people DO NOT agree on being observated. Just because you want it doesnt make it more valid. That is why most people are furious (no matter where you live) if observate them. And you dont have a right to observate people without any law and their disagreement, and i hope it always stays the same. Because then the internet would be a fucking sad place.
And then again, did they apologise to anyone? Did i miss that?
Or did they just criticize russia and china for not catching THEIR spy? I mean that is fucking hilarious. It is like they did nothing wrong and instead criticize other states for not catching their goddamn spy. I dont even have words for this.
It is so interesting that my country has the same "priority" than china, saudiarabia and iran. The americans are taking part in industrial espionage and other Surveillance of germany and other countries and nobody gives a fuck. If any other country in the world would have such activities running the public outcry would be enormous but it seems like they can treat my country and others as a vassal state of the US and A. Well done.
It just makes me sick how much selfrighteous the americans act on a global scale and nobody is punishing them for it.
They talk about the axis of evil and impose restrictions on other countrys. What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, i m highly disappointed by the USA. I was always under the impression that the USA had at least some decency.
You may call snowden a traitor, but then again the USA was traiting the whole world. So if they punish him, they should be punished aswell. That would just be logical.
I love this post. Who are these "Americans" that act so self righteous? Who is this "THEY" that must be punished?
Making blanket statements like "the AMERICANS SHOULD BE PUNISHED" is silly and immature. Mama Jane down the street didn't do shit. The NSA janitor didn't do shit. Using language like that plus nonsense like vassal state is just revealing a ridiculous preconceived bias on your part more than anything.
And just because Germany is the same color as China and iran means what exactly? Yeah. Nothing. Are these colors representative of the likelihood of the state committing an attack against the US? What does it actually mean? Are you privy to the information that determined the color Germany is on this map? Wasn't it In Germany when two americans got murdered brutally in an airport? Hmm.
That is a stupid post.
It is absolutely evident that Sokrates was not singleing out some poor janitor and demanded to "hang him high". Its your country violating my rights, and as such the general body of citizens in the U.S. is responsible. Of course it is then a valid point to blame this general body of U.S. citizens. Personally, I would like to see some really harsh reactions from my government, but I doubt that will happen.
I don't even get what you mean with the second paragraph. First, you are asking whether it is a bad thing to have the same classification, implying that it may not imply much after all. Then you justify Germany's status based on some random murder? I really don't see any sense in that, so please explain.
General body of US citizens are responsible for violating German rights.
General body.
Body.
A body of citizens is comprised of individuals. So the janitor is partially responsible. Weird.
The map shows the amount of data gathered from various countries and assigns them colors based on the amount of data. It stands to reason that certain countries are going to have more data pulled than others, for a variety of reasons. China and Iran, okay, obvious. Germany? Well, it's the foremost power in continental Europe. It's strong and wealthy and important. Americans have died there in the past in what some would call "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't seem terribly illogical to pull information from Germany, doesn't it?
Point is we know NOTHING about the reasons behind why Germany in particular is looked at more than others, and anything we say is biased conjecture based on bullshit like "rawr Americans should be PUNISHED for espionage" because...well...because well they did it MORE than everyone else
add to that that it's apperently, like you said, amount of data gathered and not per capita. So obviously a country like Germany will look more into the reddish (or yellow-ish) simply due to population. Add to that that the US still has a shitton of soldiers over here.
I don't get why people are suprised about this at all.
Thats why germany is two categories more reddish than france, makes sense. Oh wait it doesnt.
I said I'm not suprised about it, that's all I said. (Obviously) No comment about wether it makes sense or wether I like it was made, that's just pointless anyways.
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
You do know that the NSA is not about crime prevention right?
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
You know that this wouldnt just affect the "bad" guys right? There are a lot of more implications if you have to identify yourself on the internet and be observated. It would make it a sad, sterile place. Not the internet we know right now.
And now i just realize one thread below this one it says a LOL player is in jail and faces up to 8 years of prison because he made a stupid comment in the game.
Now that is the internet we want. Feels damn right.
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
I don't even know what to say about this, sorry. Maybe get a glimpse of the real world, without being offensive. You'd be surprised. In my world, corruption is a real problem. And for that matter, you will never get an "inside" into an organisation that monitors crime. It's like going to some SWAT team and asking for them to show their special tactics. They won't do it. Same applies here.
As a citizen, you will have NO control or inside whatsoever, ever. Which isn't even a bad thing, as long as such "institutions" don't exist in the first place.
Edit: not to mention, for example, laws. There are so many retarded and easy abusable laws out there, yet you can't do jackshit against it. Even though they were created by people you voted. Oh you didn't vote them? Well there's your problem i guess.
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
You know that this wouldnt just affect the "bad" guys right? There are a lot of more implications if you have to identify yourself on the internet and be observated. It would make it a sad, sterile place. Not the internet we know right now.
Of course it would affect the good guys also. I´m just thinking that the human right, that nobody should know what I´m doing is wrong to begin with. The citizens want to be guarded by their government and they get angry at the government if something terrible like bomb attacks happen. But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? We have to decide what we want. Do we want to be guarded by the government so that it can help us or do we want to fight for ourselfs in a dangerous situation? In my opinion a human right in terms nobody should know what I´m planning to do what is endangering the human right to live for other people shouldn´t be present at all. I think most people just watch too much movies and are afraid that the government gets too powerful and control us citizens like slaves, but I think we could avoid it if we make the actions of the government more transparant to the citizens and have multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens would make a situation that most people fear where the citizens are traded as slaves almost impossible. Yes, ralistically speaken this would be too much of a change and I don´t know where to start with, but I think it would be definitely better than the current situation. Let me dream :D
Well how about they dont control us at all? How about that? Because i dont feel threatened by the internet. And the guys that are planning something most likely wont be so stupid to use skype to plan their bombings.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
Ok so you would have no problem with telling us all your real name, income, creepy sites you visit?
On topic, yes he is gulity, but has done the world a huge favor. As a German I am really disapointed and quite angry towards the USA Gov. and Bristish!
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
It's just a matter of policy then as Snowden as said. What's stopping them from modifying/using loopholes to collapse or change the level of control each organization has? What's stopping them from rendering the supposedly democratic process nonplus just like how the US election process is now?
On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote: Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit.
That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country.
The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
It's just a matter of policy then as Snowden as said. What's stopping them from modifying/using loopholes to collapse or change the level of control each organization has? What's stopping them from rendering the supposedly democratic process nonplus just like how the US election process is now?
In other news, the European Union's officials are furious at the US for allegations that the NSA spied not only on the US and China, but also on EU offices.
"I am deeply worried and shocked about the allegations," European Parliament President Martin Schulz said in a statement. "If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-US relations. On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the U.S. authorities with regard to these allegations."
German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger "said if the accusations were true it was reminiscent of the Cold War," ministry spokesman Anders Mertzlufft said, adding that the minister "has asked for an immediate explanation from the United States."
"We need more precise information," said European Parliament President Martin Schulz. "But if it is true, it is a huge scandal. That would mean a huge burden for relations between the EU and the US. We now demand comprehensive information."
"If these reports are true, then it is abhorrent," said Luxembourgian Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "It would seem that the secret services have gotten out of control. The US should monitor their own secret services rather than their allies."
"It is unacceptable when European diplomats and politicians are spied on in their day-to-day activities," said Manfred Weber, deputy head and security expert for the European People's Party, an amalgam of European center-right parties in European Parliament. "Our confidence has been shaken."
Elmar Brok, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in European Parliament added his opprobrium. "The spying has reached dimensions that I didn't think were possible for a democratic country. Such behavior among allies is intolerable." The US, he added, once the land of the free, "is suffering from a security syndrome," added Brok, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. "They have completely lost all balance. George Orwell is nothing by comparison."
A further Merkel ally in European Parliament, Markus Ferber, accused the US on Sunday of using methods akin to the feared East German secret police, the Stasi. Like Weber, Ferber is a member of the CSU. "A democratic constitutional state that uses Stasi methods sacrifices all credibility as a moral authority," Ferber told the German daily Die Welt on Sunday. "It has destroyed trust."
"This is meltdown of the constitutional state," said Jan Philipp Albrecht, a Green Party representative in European Parliament. The NSA engaged in nothing less than "espionage against democratic countries and their institutions,"
Green Party floor leader in European Parliament Daniel Cohn-Bendit went even further. "A simple note of protest is not enough anymore. The EU must immediately suspend negotiations with the US over a free trade agreement," he said. "First, we need a deal on data protection so that something like this never happens again. Only then can we resume (free-trade) negotiations."
Hope he is safe from American persecution. The guy that projected the words ‘United Stasi of America’ on the US embassy in Berlin facing criminal charges from the German police should be an outrage to everyone living in that country. How can Merkel just sit there and justify the US doing the same thing to the people of Germany as the Stasi did? A foreign country no less
On July 12 2013 06:17 Zeo wrote: Hope he is safe from American persecution. The guy that projected the words ‘United Stasi of America’ on the US embassy in Berlin facing criminal charges from the German police should be an outrage to everyone living in that country. How can Merkel just sit there and justify the US doing the same thing to the people of Germany as the Stasi did? A foreign country no less
She's kissing Obama's ass so vigorously, it's pathetic.
Listening to her defending PRISM and misdirecting the public's attention to the free trade zone almost makes me ashamed to be a German as much as our government's stance of gay marriage...
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Err.....as much as i am becoming disgusted by my government, my state does have a seat belt ticket with fines as much as 500 for not having a seat belt on. The law is nicknamed "click it or ticket".
That said if they tell us what do we have to hide, if they had nothing to hide and this stupid program wasnt illegal and bullshit to begin with they wouldnt even be going after snowden for revealing the corruption.
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote: Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
i think the wrong question is being asked and the argument is being shifted when a question like this is being posted. Snowden is a whistleblower, we must look at his message and not be distracted by the non argument of whether he is a traitor or not.
frankly to label him a traitor is to concede that what the government is doing is acceptable.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Seatbelts are actually enforced in nearly the whole world, at least whole of europe and i think also the usa. Are they not in brazil?
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
a prime example is the boston bombing. The finish line was swimming with agencies and bomb sniffing dogs conducting a "drill" for the same event, didn't stop it from happening and if anything only raises suspicions that they were in on it.
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote: Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
i think the wrong question is being asked and the argument is being shifted when a question like this is being posted. Snowden is a whistleblower, we must look at his message and not be distracted by the non argument of whether he is a traitor or not.
frankly to label him a traitor is to concede that what the government is doing is acceptable.
He released the information to the public. The only way he could be considered a traitor is if our government views its citizens as the enemy. Agreed that the wrong question is being asked, there is zero doubt he is a whistleblower. He is also a true hero.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Seatbelts are actually enforced in nearly the whole world, at least whole of europe and i think also the usa. Are they not in brazil?
I was talking about the US. It's mandatory in all states (except New Hampshire), but most of the states don't allow it to be actively enforced: you can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt, but ONLY if you get pulled over for some other infraction (like speeding, drunk driving, going through red, etc.) So effectively people drive around without wearing a seat belt all the time (at least, in my experience when I was visiting there).
Now I have to say that this is purely anecdotal experience, but it's easy to check that at least the enforcement bit is lacking in the US.
But this was just one of many potential measures that would save more lives while being less intrusive.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage.
GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US!
Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff. Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more. Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes.
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about.
It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage.
GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US!
Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff. Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more. Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes.
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about.
It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
Well said, well said.
If only it were simply America and if only we could love at them from afar, but Europeans are almost as bad in that regard.
I don't think 9/11 was really that important when it comes to this matter. It was just an excuse for Western countries especially to pick up the pace, which it certainly allowed them to. But the ability for Governments to abuse recent technologies is just far too tempting and easy in the end, with our without stuff like the patriot act. It was going to happen.
It's not like the specter of "terrorism" is anything new either.
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote: But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage.
GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US!
Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff. Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more. Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes.
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about.
It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
Am I actually saying they should? No. I'm not. It is COMPLETELY tangential to this discussion. What I was pointing out was that taking a MASSIVE INTRUSIVE MEASURE like SPYING ON your entire population AND that of yoru ALLIES is clearly not done to save human lives. If saving human life was what they were trying to do then any number of other measures would be far more effective.
That does, indeed, include, raising taxes on shit that is unhealthy for you. Do I agree with doing that? No. But I am also strongly opposed to giving the NSA mandate to snoop through my emails.
Well the way I see it, that we in Denmark have this rule that if he witness a crime and do not testify, we're committing a crime ourselves (as it'd be the same as helping the criminal indirectly).
So by that logic, he'd be committing a crime by not stopping the spying, unless ofcourse someone claims that the international spying on the public isn't a crime.
Of course not. The US government is unconstitutionally and secretly stealing all of the people's information and Snowden steals few documents to expose this criminality going on in secret and he is charged with espionage?
How about a foreign enemy force have taken over the federal government of the USA and are subverting the constitution, a crime which used to be punished with public hangings.
I mean the DOJ runs Fast and Furios, IRS scandal, targeting of journalists, then you have the Benghazi scandal, the NSA scandal, the declassified false flag operations like Northwoods and Gladio where the US government with its NATO allies have killed thousands of people, hundreds of which children to blame on their political enemies to push a certain narrative.
Being guilty of a crime does not necessarily coincide with moral failing. The anti nazi resistance in vichy france, for instance.
Anyway, I dislike all the focus on Snowden. Typical US media spin tactic. Focus on the personalities and not the issues. The US govt has all the means, motive and opportunity to begin using the same dirty tactics it employs overseas, in order to control the domestic front.
I didn't really care about expanding surveillance before, because I assumed it would be used for good. Now I see that the government will do basically whatever it thinks it can get away with, answering to no one, and disguising the whole thing as "national security". Hate to admit it but the conspiracy theorists are closer to the mark on this than everyone would like to believe.
Meanwhile the corporate-statist media will just throw up a smokescreen of "SNOWDEN: VILLAIN OR HERO!?" to distract everyone from the shadow empire slowly being erected around them.
On June 26 2013 02:51 Vanimar wrote: It all depends on th edefinitions and guidelines of "espionage" in the US I guess. Although since it is the US he will be tried or it, since, well, republicans.....
Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
Let the unconstitutional mass privacy invasion continue!
The amendment that was shot down had nothing to do with the Patriot Act or it's successors, it's about the phone metadata which was covered by a Supreme Court ruling. That's the one the telecomms and advertisers absolutely loved long before the counterterrorism effort came in.
As long as Americans are giving their privacy away to commercial interests, they have no pedestal to stand to protest the security side of it.
On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
Let the unconstitutional mass privacy invasion continue!
The amendment that was shot down had nothing to do with the Patriot Act or it's successors, it's about the phone metadata which was covered by a Supreme Court ruling. That's the one the telecomms and advertisers absolutely loved long before the counterterrorism effort came in.
As long as Americans are giving their privacy away to commercial interests, they have no pedestal to stand to protest the security side of it.
And how do you propose people stop giving away their privacy, to corporate, or otherwise. For instance, should everyone just stop using their extremely expensive smartphones that they've invested not just a lot of money into? It's not really the people's fault, no one truly understood how abusive companies would be when they signed up for one, there should have been laws against that type of stuff, but instead our government just joined in on it.
As far as internet goes, I have one ISP where I live, Time Warner Cable. Should I just abandon all technology simply because there are those with money and power that want to exploit it? :\
I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
On August 11 2013 15:44 LegalLord wrote: I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
The details make all the difference.
And the details is the fact that the information NSA and every other gov is collecting is not for the safety of the common human but to sustain and increase power of the gov has over the human. They do this by deepthroating the big banks.
Whether you think it's fair or not, Snowden disclosed classified information which by definition contains sensitive information about the US government. Top Secret classification is defined as: "Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available." Every government employee and contractor HAS to sign forms that acknowledge this and its legal repercussions. He's 100% guilty for the things they charged him with because he literally signed a contract that said he wouldn't do a, b, and c or else he'd be committing x, y, and z crimes.
On August 11 2013 16:12 caelym wrote: Whether you think it's fair or not, Snowden disclosed classified information which by definition contains sensitive information about the US government. Top Secret classification is defined as: "Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available." Every government employee and contractor HAS to sign forms that acknowledge this and its legal repercussions. He's 100% guilty for the things they charged him with because he literally signed a contract that said he wouldn't do a, b, and c or else he'd be committing x, y, and z crimes.
then by your standard, how can there ever be a whistleblower? it is there to in check if the company/government is not conducting things that are dishonest, corruption etcetc this is why there is whistleblower protection act.
most public viewed that NSA program is a direct threat to public interest and yet the government is determined to label it differently.
what's worse is how US is treating the case with the links I put up above. Those are definitly not what we would expect from a country that consistently "promoting" and doing reports on other countries' human right
It depends on what you "whistleblow", obviously. Problem with Snowden is he mainly revealed questionable activities pertaining to internet privacy/rights, a pretty murky and uncharted issue presently. I don't blame him for thinking a court might not see it the way many others might or should, especially with the broad specter of "terrorism" being a major factor in it. Skipping town was probably the smart move for him personally.
If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
Before the IRS started targeting conservative Tea Party members... I would have been a lot more upset about Snowden. However, since the government has already proven they will take the information they have and use it against average citizens doing absolutely nothing wrong....
Dismantle this NSA program and give Snowden a medal. He deserves our respect and appreciation, not prison.
Ben Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Wait, I am not sure how their is an argument on this.
If Snowden revealed real and pertinent information to the rest of the world, of illegal activities happening in the USA, then he can't be held accountable by that same government. As the natural reaction would be to respond to deny.
I think what is happening here is, that the US government, are causing alot of media attention on HIM, to try and muddy the fact; that they are and have been illegally working in the US and abroad very blatantly and consciously.(the title itself shows this, addressing Snowden and and not the fact the US Government is illegally working.)
So up until this point, we have to take the facts as they are, and not the possibilities that could be, as this will dilute the truth(or as close as we will ever see it) upon which we can judge and base our decisions on what is/was the correct decision by Snowden and thusly what our moral response should be.
If he was working for China, then if that is ever confirmed by him or by a tribunal, we take it into account.
Work purely off the facts and make judgements on those.
We simple minded folks don't get to caught up in the subtleties of these types of things. But, my common sense tells me that freedom from my government piling up information on me, especially after proving they're willing to use it against citizenry not engaged in terrorism, is about as essential as it gets.
I'm not really clued in with the nitty gritty of the whole situation and the way the laws in the US are set up, so i cant really comment with any certainty. But i've always found it strange regarding snowden that everyone seems to acknowledge what he did compromised government agencies and surveillance programs, but to me it comes down to a question of national interest. Obviously he acted in a way that was not aligned with government interests, but did he act in the national interest when he disclosed to the media the level of snooping going on, and in that respect I think he did.
It's strange times we live in when the national interest and government interests don't appear aligned...
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
You don't fix laws by committing treason.
everywhere sells and track marketing tactics, but not if the government can map out your whole life by demanding data across all different industries and has the power to do what they want with those data. I think then our view point splits between whether snowden was correct in running to another country. I personally think he wasn't trying to sell any secrets, reason being he revealed the secrets AND actually had difficulty seeking asylum from other countries. You call that treason, I call that trying to stay alive. not to mention it's a split opinion on whether that is treason or government is doing treason against its own people
On August 11 2013 17:37 Emporium wrote: Wait, I am not sure how their is an argument on this.
If Snowden revealed real and pertinent information to the rest of the world, of illegal activities happening in the USA, then he can't be held accountable by that same government. As the natural reaction would be to respond to deny.
I think what is happening here is, that the US government, are causing alot of media attention on HIM, to try and muddy the fact; that they are and have been illegally working in the US and abroad very blatantly and consciously.(the title itself shows this, addressing Snowden and and not the fact the US Government is illegally working.)
So up until this point, we have to take the facts as they are, and not the possibilities that could be, as this will dilute the truth(or as close as we will ever see it) upon which we can judge and base our decisions on what is/was the correct decision by Snowden and thusly what our moral response should be.
If he was working for China, then if that is ever confirmed by him or by a tribunal, we take it into account.
Work purely off the facts and make judgements on those.
You can pretty much cut and paste that segment and include Snowden's name over Manning's. You can disagree on how similar Snowden and Manning are, but the segment still works for the most part.
If he's charged with espionage, then who was he spying for?
HE WAS WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Well, other than the part about the American people paying his salary.
But yeah, you can't trust those guys. Someone should keep an eye on them.
And yeah, that's how America treats its whistleblowers.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
You don't fix laws by committing treason.
everywhere sells and track marketing tactics, but not if the government can map out your whole life by demanding data across all different industries and has the power to do what they want with those data. I think then our view point splits between whether snowden was correct in running to another country. I personally think he wasn't trying to sell any secrets, reason being he revealed the secrets AND actually had difficulty seeking asylum from other countries. You call that treason, I call that trying to stay alive. not to mention it's a split opinion on whether that is treason or government is doing treason against its own people
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
Now that he ran to China and Russia, he will be tried for treason and selling government secrets; the NSA will never be put into question.
So instead of his whistle blowing being used to correct and adjust the current system, his running away means that the only legal actions that follow are ones of punishing someone for selling secrets to china/russia. That is my problem with what he did.
And like I said, I can't get mad at a company for adding one more vendor to their business intelligence department. Sure its very "big brother" but the only way to honestly stop it is to make it illegal for corporations to have Business Intelligence units.
On August 11 2013 15:44 LegalLord wrote: I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
The details make all the difference.
And the details is the fact that the information NSA and every other gov is collecting is not for the safety of the common human but to sustain and increase power of the gov has over the human. They do this by deepthroating the big banks.
Fact, or conjecture?
One of these two is what a court of law is actually based on. The other is what the e-lawyers that are either convicting or acquitting him of espionage are basing their decision on.
While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
I think that's incredibly wishful thinking.
If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.
It's not under European law.
And wouldn't it have been great to have a trial where Snowden is being questioned for why he was telling the media these secrets and he points out that it's illegal in Europe to do what he did.
Except now he won't be asked that since he will now only be trialed for treason.
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
Since he ran, the courts will only ask if russia/china has information on the US.
[QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:34 LegalLord wrote: [QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote: [QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote: [QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE] It's not under European law.[/QUOTE] Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?[/QUOTE] Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.
It's not under European law.
Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?
Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial.
Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM.
What does European law have to do with anything in the first place?
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
I think that's incredibly wishful thinking.
If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.
It's not under European law.
Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?
Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial.
Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM.
What does European law have to do with anything in the first place?
Wouldn't it be logical that what the leaked information is about, matters for the whistleblower to recieve protection against prosecution or not. Particularly, the legality of such a program in other countries in where the the PRISM program is used, since European law prescribes that a person may not be investigated (even in the majority of aggregated information types) without prior court order or reasonable suspicion.
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
I think that's incredibly wishful thinking.
If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
No, probably not. The US doesn't really do that all too often, and they especially don't do that with civilians. There are rights under the Constitution that have to be respected, and doing something unconstitutional is really not worth the backlash.
Manning was not a civilian, if that's what you're alluding to. It also didn't help that Assange was the more interesting media story.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.
It's not under European law.
Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?
Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial.
Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM.
What does European law have to do with anything in the first place?
Wouldn't it be logical that what the leaked information is about, matters for the whistleblower to recieve protection against prosecution or not. Particularly, the legality of such a program in other countries in where the NSA operates, since European law prescribes that a person may not be investigated (even in aggregated data) without prior court order or reasonable suspicion.
That's the thing though; nobody wants to shield him for moral reasons. Are Bolivia, Venezuela, and Russia considered to be especially open and freedom-friendly governments? Or is it more likely that they agree to shield Snowden because they have a bone to pick with the US? I think the answer is very obvious.
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
I think that's incredibly wishful thinking.
If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions and focusing the debate on whether he committed treason or not seems like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing. The odds of him not being convicted are basically zero, and the odds of the trial influencing legal status of PRISM are just as bad.
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
I think that's incredibly wishful thinking.
If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
Prove it. Either give us good examples of this happening to civilians or gtfo.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though
also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
On August 12 2013 00:54 Forikorder wrote: also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though
also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
It's not that nobody will bring it up, but Snowden's trial for whatever they charged him with if he stayed would have been the PERFECT avenue for determining the legality of the law. If it's illegal, Snowden would be protected under whistleblowing laws.
Now we have a mesh of lawsuits that simply nip around the edges of the program(s).
Would they have talked about the legality had he stayed? I'm afraid not, based on this: - They have admitted the existence of the PRISM project as described by Snowden and state that is fully legal; - There are no massive amounts of lawsuits from US organizations, concerned citizens and the like; - The US governmenent seems to be concerned exclusively with his trial, not with the legality of what is revealed.
Sorry, to take down your hopes but even if he would have stayed, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, he didn't stand a chance as the NSA would have used an array of expert lawyers that would make minced meat out of him.
It bothers a lot of citizens, simply because it's our own money being put in programs such as PRISM, while in th end they act like arrogant pricks when it comes to our personal rights.
If you look at the relation between US and other countries, a lot becomes clear. Would the US mingle with rising Russia and China. Not so much as it mingles with EU policy, even to the point where it seems that EU politicans are afraid of the US. Even though some countries as Germany are ramping up privacy arrangements.
On August 12 2013 01:01 peacenl wrote: Would they have talked about the legality had he stayed? I'm afraid not, based on this: - They have admitted the existence of the PRISM project as described by Snowden and state that is fully legal; - There are no massive amounts of lawsuits from US organizations, concerned citizens and the like; - The US governmenent seems to be concerned exclusively with his trial, not with the legality of what is revealed.
Sorry, to take down your hopes but even if he would have stayed, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, he didn't stand a chance.
If the law is unconstitutional, his actions might have been far more meaningful if he had stayed (legal but unconstitutional = not legal). He would have had some protection and the program could have been stopped. As it stands, he talked to Russia and China and he might be guilty of treason for doing so.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though
also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
Supreme court can only make decisions based on cases brought before them.
People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
On August 12 2013 01:01 peacenl wrote: Would they have talked about the legality had he stayed? I'm afraid not, based on this: - They have admitted the existence of the PRISM project as described by Snowden and state that is fully legal; - There are no massive amounts of lawsuits from US organizations, concerned citizens and the like; - The US governmenent seems to be concerned exclusively with his trial, not with the legality of what is revealed.
Sorry, to take down your hopes but even if he would have stayed, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, he didn't stand a chance as the NSA would have used an array of expert lawyers that would make minced meat out of him.
It bothers a lot of citizens, simply because it's our own money being put in programs such as PRISM, while in th end they act like arrogant pricks when it comes to our personal rights.
If you look at the relation between US and other countries, a lot becomes clear. Would the US mingle with rising Russia and China. Not so much as it mingles with EU policy, even to the point where it seems that EU politicans are afraid of the US. Even though some countries as Germany are ramping up privacy arrangements.
The State Department has said that it is fully legal, but it hasn't had a full challenge in the courts. You can't get a full challenge in the courts unless you can prove how your party is directly involved. Due to the secrecy of the program, it's hard for any outside groups to bring a claim that they are involved. However, if Snowden had stayed, he can challenge the legality of the program under the 4th Amendment (or any other conflicting legislation), since the legality of said program determines his protection under the various whistleblower protections we have. However, since he ran to China and Russia, he can no longer claim protection under whistleblower laws, and is now at the mercy of espionage and treason charges.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
There are legitimate reasons to grant asylum to people, especially people who are actually political refugees running away from an unjust system.
Snowden is not one of those.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote:Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason.
The thing I'm wondering is where the cut off point lies in where his case becomes hopeless considering he already ran to these countries and talked with and probably gave all documents to the Russian intelligence services.
Suppose he would return tomorrow to the US. It's what both Obama and Putin prefer. But how strong would his case be at this point fighting the legality of the exposed program?
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
On August 12 2013 01:46 peacenl wrote: Suppose he would return tomorrow to the US. It's what both Obama and Putin prefer. But how strong would his case be at this point fighting the legality of the exposed program?
Realistically, pretty low. He might still be able to argue the legality of PRISM, but if he's guilty of treason he's going to prison for a long time regardless of the outcome of the case. Basically, he could have a legal team argue the position for him in order to have some lesser charges against him overturned, along with PRISM.
He's pretty much earned himself life in prison if he shared information with Russia and China though.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason.
This really depends on one's capability or willingness of looking past existing law and what is immoral or not? Disregarding sharing national secrets, because there is no way of telling.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason.
This really depends on one's capability of looking past existing law and what is immoral or not?
The law is not based on conjecture. If you disagree with the law and you are still willing to break it, you should accept the punishment for doing so.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
Manning was a soldier tried by a court martial - quite different from Snowden, a civilian. The only thing that could be considered unjust is his pre-trial imprisonment. He wasn't sentenced for any crimes that he did not actually commit.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
It seems US government rather catches a few terrorist crooks at the cost of billions of Dollars, while fearmongering its citizens and disregrading their privacy, than to advance the race into space further and increase its powerhold on the world. Something that will come to bite them in the ass after a while, I should think.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote:Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason.
I'm amazed at people criticizing him for chosing China and Russia. Where do you want him to go ? China and Russia are the two countries that actually stand up to US and its bullshit - sadly. Sure, it would have been better to go to Europe, because we're nice and all, but considering some european countries prevented a presidential plane to pass in their airspace just to peak in it, I'm pretty sure they would have instantly put him in a plane back to the States. And then he would have become another Bradley Manning.
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote: He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
There are legitimate reasons to grant asylum to people, especially people who are actually political refugees running away from an unjust system.
Snowden is not one of those.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote:Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason.
I'm amazed at people criticizing him for chosing China and Russia. Where do you want him to go ? China and Russia are the two countries that actually stand up to US and its bullshit - sadly. Sure, it would have been better to go to Europe, because we're nice and all, but considering some european countries prevented a presidential plane to pass in their airspace just to peak in it, I'm pretty sure they would have instantly put him in a plane back to the States. And then he would have become another Bradley Manning.
He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back.
The fact that the US is really upset about Russia granting him an asylum is beyond hypocritical. As if the US wouldn't have been frothing at their mouths granting a Russian "spy" an asylum the first chance they'd get.
The legality of what NSA has been doing is just not there, it is ILLEGAL. Trying to get this whistleblower convicted is just adding insult to injury..
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
On August 12 2013 03:32 LegalLord wrote: He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back.
You saw what just happened to Manning right? While one can still somewhat question if all he leaked was neccessary, getting over 100 years in prison is not exactly fair, imo.
In these cases you can't really trust the government/courts to be on your side as a whistleblower. You see the government wants these leaks to end, so they will convict them with insanely hard-hitting sentences. It's probably the smart thing to run away. He has already sacrificed a life with his family and in his home country. Calling him a coward (which many of those who share your opinion calls him) is truly misguided.
protest, vote ppl in who'll change things (what obama promised to do but lied). but average person doesnt care about stuff unless its about race or a celebrity.
On August 12 2013 03:42 JimSocks wrote: protest, vote ppl in who'll change things (what obama promised to do but lied). but average person doesnt care about stuff unless its about race or a celebrity.
There's nobody to vote.
It's funny because there's a lot of "average people" who don't want the tyrannical and oppressive government to be looking after them when it comes to education or healthcare or taking their guns, but when it comes to government looking after them in the most literal meaning of the term, that's perfectly fine.
Seriously this was ONE case you'd expect the right to go crazy about and actually contribute to something positive for once, and all we ever heard were occasional isolated whimpers and cop-out reactions.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
As someone said, it is the most direct way. You can also change the law or change the constitution, both of which are much more difficult. A court proceeding is the simplest way to change the law, but courts are not allowed to randomly change the law. They have to do so as it pertains to a case.
On August 12 2013 03:32 LegalLord wrote: He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back.
You saw what just happened to Manning right? While one can still somewhat question if all he leaked was neccessary, getting over 100 years in prison is not exactly fair, imo.
In these cases you can't really trust the government/courts to be on your side as a whistleblower. You see the government wants these leaks to end, so they will convict them with insanely hard-hitting sentences. It's probably the smart thing to run away. He has already sacrificed a life with his family and in his home country. Calling him a coward (which many of those who share your opinion calls him) is truly misguided.
What you seem to ignore is the fact that Manning was a soldier, which means he agreed to being stripped of many rights when he joined the service. Keep in mind that all US soldiers are volunteers, so he was never even coerced into signing such documents - he did so of his own free will. Also, Manning never was punished for anything he didn't deserve to be punished for. Despite everything, he received a fair trial. The fact that you think he was a whistleblower doesn't change reality.
Snowden is a civilian and his crimes were much lesser and more reasonable until he went to China and Russia. Now he's very possibly a traitor.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
that's what senators do all the time tho.
In germany the constitutional court can review and veto any new law that has been made by the congress. They have to work in the framework that our constitution set up (we dont really have a constitution but that's another matter). In the US you seem to rely on your elected people to do that work which imo is foolish. This veto power is part of the american presidency but this is dangerous as it puts a lot of power into a persons hands which allready has an agenda and can lead to a stalemate where nothing moves because the president vetos laws made by the opposing party
the constitutional court does not change laws either. If it deems a law as not fitting into our constitution the congress has to redo it.
Also the court only becomes active when someone is making a lawsuit, so it kinda is the last way how the "people" can influence government decisions
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Another interesting question is: Why aren't the people who leaked about the great Al Qaeda meeting not behind bars yet? That was a much more dangerous leak than what Snowden did.
It seems the American government is very selective about what leaks they intend to punish people for.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
that's what senators do all the time tho.
In germany the constitutional court can review and veto any new law that has been made by the congress. They have to work in the framework that our constitution set up (we dont really have a constitution but that's another matter). In the US you seem to rely on your elected people to do that work which imo is foolish. This veto power is part of the american presidency but this is dangerous as it puts a lot of power into a persons hands which allready has an agenda and can lead to a stalemate where nothing moves because the president vetos laws made by the opposing party
the constitutional court does not change laws either. If it deems a law as not fitting into our constitution the congress has to redo it.
Also the court only becomes active when someone is making a lawsuit, so it kinda is the last way how the "people" can influence government decisions
American senators and presidents are more democratically accountable, whereas American judges are less accountable to the people and more independent, which is why it is essential that they have less power.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
By running to China/Russia they will never charge him for breaking confidentiality, they would charge him for treason. Which has nothing to do with PRISM. They would charge him with sharing secrets. The whole trial would never be about the right or wrongness of the NSA.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound very believable at all.
Leaking classified information to the media is pretty much equivalent to leaking it to everyone who listens. It wouldn't be hard to spin the case as him releasing information sensitive to national security to the ever-ambiguous "enemies of America" even if he never set foot outside the States. One also doesn't physically need to be present in Russia and China to share other kinds of classified secrets.
If there is no reliable mechanism to get PRISM to the court other than by Snowden appearing in court and it's simply going to be ignored by the institutions just because one guy isn't there, there's no wonder that such a system doesn't really inspire much confidence to begin with.
Either way, running away was the most sensible decision he could have made. Even more so in hindsight, when the public reactions to PRISM and him whistleblowing started popping up and it became apparent that neither the American public nor the institutions are capable of dealing with a case like this on their hands.
You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound very believable at all.
Leaking classified information to the media is pretty much equivalent to leaking it to everyone who listens. It wouldn't be hard to spin the case as him releasing information sensitive to national security to the ever-ambiguous "enemies of America" even if he never set foot outside the States. One also doesn't physically need to be present in Russia and China to share other kinds of classified secrets.
If there is no reliable mechanism to get PRISM to the court other than by Snowden appearing in court and it's simply going to be ignored by the institutions just because one guy isn't there, there's no wonder that such a system doesn't really inspire much confidence to begin with.
Either way, running away was the most sensible decision he could have made. Even more so in hindsight, when the public reactions to PRISM and him whistleblowing started popping up and it became apparent that neither the American public nor the institutions are capable of dealing with a case like this on their hands.
Its the limits set on Judges and the Supreme Court in order to prevent them from becoming tyrants.
The judicial system is limited to only what is presented to them; they are not allowed to actively change laws "just because."
So while Judges aren't allowed to simply say "NSA is unconstitutional" they are also prevented from simply saying "Pro-Life is automatically law."
And yes, there is a big difference between "leaking to the media" and "leaking to enemy powers."
Its a lot easier to accuse someone who ran off to a country after revealing secrets of treason than it is to accuse someone of treason who stays in US land and publicly talking to US citizens. It's not treason to "divulge" to fellow Americans. For them to prove he is guilty of treason for talking to Americans they would have to prove that he was in talks with country X.
Now, Snowden is not required for the judicial system to go after the NSA. What is required, is someone to make the accusation and argument that the NSA is unconstitutional. That person needs evidence of the unconstitutional actions, to get that evidence he needs either the NSA database or a witness giving his testimony (someone like Snowden).
IE; all the courts needs is an accuser and evidence. The only evidence we currently have is Snowden unless you think the current NSA guys will make the public statement against NSA.
On August 12 2013 08:35 LegalLord wrote: You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making.
Even if he never talked. All the US needs to show is that Russia/China knows something that they aren't supposed to know, and that Snowden also knew that information prior to going to Russia/China.
The argument would be "China/Russia is not supposed to know _____, but ever since Snowden went there they they now know about it." they would then say "We asked China/Russia to hand him back, but they refused. They obviously had need of him."
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
I've heard a fair number of reputable politicians (including presidents) say the following on the matter: "Court packing is impossible because as soon as you nominate your friends, they cease to be your friends."
It's true, more or less, with the exception of the few cases that really just depend on the judge's (or justice's) interpretation of the law, such as Obamacare.
On August 12 2013 08:35 LegalLord wrote: You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making.
Even if he never talked. All the US needs to show is that Russia/China knows something that they aren't supposed to know, and that Snowden also knew that information prior to going to Russia/China.
The argument would be "China/Russia is not supposed to know _____, but ever since Snowden went there they they now know about it." they would then say "We asked China/Russia to hand him back, but they refused. They obviously had need of him."
Might be a bit of a stretch; that's still circumstantial evidence. But it's pretty hard to believe that he didn't talk.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
If you don't trust that the judicial system can correct a problem, then the only resolution is civil war.
You either believe that the mechanics of the system can be used to solve a problem, or you believe that you need to forcibly change the system. There is no "things will work out because that's what happens in movies" option.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
It appears that you have very little understanding of how American courts operate. The adversarial system and respect for precedent, not to mention the highly skilled and independent background of each judge, ensure that trials are as unbiased and fair as possible.
(Yes, there are some unfortunate kinks in the system; for example, you cannot file claims against the government for illegal surveillance policies unless you can prove that you are clearly a victim of those policies, but you can't prove those policies if they are covert in the first place; however, at least the government has been doing more and more to provide greater oversight.)
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
If you don't trust that the judicial system can correct a problem, then the only resolution is civil war.
You either believe that the mechanics of the system can be used to solve a problem, or you believe that you need to forcibly change the system. There is no "things will work out because that's what happens in movies" option.
In my opinion it is possible to resolve problems to an extent using the judicial system. However, that is only possible if the issues themselves are the central focus of the hearing, rather than the persecution or absolution of an individual.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
If you don't trust that the judicial system can correct a problem, then the only resolution is civil war.
You either believe that the mechanics of the system can be used to solve a problem, or you believe that you need to forcibly change the system. There is no "things will work out because that's what happens in movies" option.
In my opinion it is possible to resolve problems to an extent using the judicial system. However, that is only possible if the issues themselves are the central focus of the hearing, rather than the persecution or absolution of an individual.
Why should the issues be the central focus instead of the problems when trying to resolve the problems under the judicial system?
The judicial system is not there to determine in the abstract the value of a particular law. That's what the congress, the president, and the democratic system is for. The judicial system is there only when someone has been wronged. This isn't "persecution or absolution" - it's prosecution, in the name of justice.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
It appears that you have very little understanding of how American courts operate. The adversarial system and respect for precedent, not to mention the highly skilled and independent background of each judge, ensure that trials are as unbiased and fair as possible.
(Yes, there are some unfortunate kinks in the system; for example, you cannot file claims against the government for illegal surveillance policies unless you can prove that you are clearly a victim of those policies, but you can't prove those policies if they are covert in the first place; however, at least the government has been doing more and more to provide greater oversight.)
Oh, indeed. The U.S. judicial system is the epitome of integrity; we all know that apple invented the smooth-edged rectangle.
Consider the case of RIM (now blackberry), a leading-edge canadian technology company which is repeatedly sued by U.S. companies on various patents which they claim are being infringed upon. RIM was sued by a patent-holding company which does no actual business of its own (other than apparently holding patents and making lawsuits) for 5 claims of infringement. The judge ruled in their favor and declared that RIM was not to make blackberry sales or services in the U.S. until the patents expired, but he stayed the ruling pending appeal (the ruling would only go through if RIM's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful).
The case went through several appeals, with RIM attempting to take it to the supreme court. Here's the short of it: first, RIM offered $450M as a settlement. Then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patents and rejected all 5 of them. However, these rejections were "non-final" rejections. The judge in the ongoing case announced that he was considering granting NTP an injunction which would shut down RIM's multi-billion dollar mobile e-mail service. RIM requested that the judge either wait for the USPTO to make it's final judgement on the patents or else grant them an injunction in the case that the patents were "finally" ruled invalid. He simply refused. With the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar service looming over their heads, RIM offered a $600+M settlement, which was accepted by NTP. The patents were later verified to be invalid. Where is the integrity in the approach taken by court in this case?
This company faces constant harassment from U.S. sources, largely due to its competition with U.S. businesses such as Apple. Their phones have the absolute best technology on the market in certain aspects (notably security for virtual transactions) yet they have many other obstacles to overcome.
Your passive acceptance that you cannot hold the government accountable for its actions out of respect for bureaucracy is the void into which all semblance of social justice dissipates.
Why should the issues be the central focus instead of the problems when trying to resolve the problems under the judicial system?
The judicial system is not there to determine in the abstract the value of a particular law. That's what the congress, the president, and the democratic system is for. The judicial system is there only when someone has been wronged. This isn't "persecution or absolution" - it's prosecution, in the name of justice.
The point I'm making is simple -- this whole situation is much bigger than Edward Snowden. Asking the question "is Snowden guilty" allows for him to be found guilty or innocent independent of any subsequent evaluation of the law (or vague and convenient interpretation) which makes him so.
In some ideal form, what you are saying is correct, sure. But in reality the law will be respected only when convenient, in the name of patriotism. Given the systemic international criminality of the U.S. government, perhaps there ought to be some concern about the ability of the system to resist corruption.
Who are US officials to speak of their processes as some kind of one true justice? Guantanimo Bay. Rejection of the right to Asylum. Industrial espionage. Secret courts. Maybe in 50 years someone will take these claims of righteousness seriously.
And yes, the system can still work, particularly when you separate the corrupt elements from the process as much as possible. Therefore, talk about the issues and only the issues -- a case about an individual most often comes down to technicality, and that's not what the country or Snowden need right now.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
Who are you to tell me (or anyone else) what I (they) can and can't quote? I served in the USAF for six years during Operations Irqai Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I put my country and everything I love about it before my personal convenience and safety. I have earned the right to quote Ben Franklin and talk about this NSA program any which way I please.
I don't think America is evil, or a police state. However, this NSA program is wrong. I'm all for national security, but I will not simply trust a federal government with this type of program. If we, as a nation, are in so much fear that we would sacrifice such basic freedoms then they are winning the war. I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror if I was such a coward.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
Who are you to tell me (or anyone else) what I (they) can and can't quote? I served in the USAF for six years during Operations Irqai Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I put my country and everything I love about it before my personal convenience and safety. I have earned the right to quote Ben Franklin and talk about this NSA program any which way I please.
I don't think America is evil, or a police state. However, this NSA program is wrong. I'm all for national security, but I will not simply trust a federal government with this type of program. If we, as a nation, are in so much fear that we would sacrifice such basic freedoms then they are winning the war. I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror if I was such a coward.
While the USA as a whole is not evil, the people in power of it are. And the population closes one eye to it and lives their happy lives.
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound very believable at all.
Leaking classified information to the media is pretty much equivalent to leaking it to everyone who listens. It wouldn't be hard to spin the case as him releasing information sensitive to national security to the ever-ambiguous "enemies of America" even if he never set foot outside the States. One also doesn't physically need to be present in Russia and China to share other kinds of classified secrets.
If there is no reliable mechanism to get PRISM to the court other than by Snowden appearing in court and it's simply going to be ignored by the institutions just because one guy isn't there, there's no wonder that such a system doesn't really inspire much confidence to begin with.
Either way, running away was the most sensible decision he could have made. Even more so in hindsight, when the public reactions to PRISM and him whistleblowing started popping up and it became apparent that neither the American public nor the institutions are capable of dealing with a case like this on their hands.
Its the limits set on Judges and the Supreme Court in order to prevent them from becoming tyrants.
The judicial system is limited to only what is presented to them; they are not allowed to actively change laws "just because."
So while Judges aren't allowed to simply say "NSA is unconstitutional" they are also prevented from simply saying "Pro-Life is automatically law."
And yes, there is a big difference between "leaking to the media" and "leaking to enemy powers."
Its a lot easier to accuse someone who ran off to a country after revealing secrets of treason than it is to accuse someone of treason who stays in US land and publicly talking to US citizens. It's not treason to "divulge" to fellow Americans. For them to prove he is guilty of treason for talking to Americans they would have to prove that he was in talks with country X.
Now, Snowden is not required for the judicial system to go after the NSA. What is required, is someone to make the accusation and argument that the NSA is unconstitutional. That person needs evidence of the unconstitutional actions, to get that evidence he needs either the NSA database or a witness giving his testimony (someone like Snowden).
IE; all the courts needs is an accuser and evidence. The only evidence we currently have is Snowden unless you think the current NSA guys will make the public statement against NSA.
The courts wouldn't be changing the laws "just because", they would be striking down or clarifying the extents of the law because the law is unconstitutional or being applied more liberally than intended.
Over here, and I believe in most European countries, there's a public institution that deals with issues like these. When some government-induced scandal breaks out or a government official is somehow incriminated, that institution has the right to investigate by questioning every government official or employee involved and requesting access to all the information pertaining to the case that the government is obligated to provide. This is how the evidence is obtained. They then present their findings before the appropriate court, thus initiating the legal case.
It just seems bizarre that, unless an individual steps up and delivers all the evidence, there is no investigative body that will act at the slightest hint of government behaving illegally or unconstitutionally. Relying on individuals to personally bear the full burden of cases like these is a very weak and unreliable mechanic.
Especially so in the environment when these individuals are relentlessly persecuted by the government. No matter what you may think of the validity of Manning or Snowden's whistleblowing, their combined fates that played out in such a brief time span are bound to discourage any potential whistleblowers with a valid case in the near future.
The courts wouldn't be changing the laws "just because", they would be striking down or clarifying the extents of the law because the law is unconstitutional or being applied more liberally than intended.
If in fact it is, which is the point of having an adversarial process.
Over here, and I believe in most European countries, there's a public institution that deals with issues like these. When some government-induced scandal breaks out or a government official is somehow incriminated, that institution has the right to investigate by questioning every government official or employee involved and requesting access to all the information pertaining to the case that the government is obligated to provide. This is how the evidence is obtained. They then present their findings before the appropriate court, thus initiating the legal case.
There is not a single identifiable centralized bureaucracy in the United States but similar things are done here. In cases of criminality. But we are not quite so trusting of investigate units that are themselves part of the institution(s) being investigated, so we think it wiser to place the main machinery of authority for investigation in the independent judiciary.
It just seems bizarre that, unless an individual steps up and delivers all the evidence, there is no investigative body that will act at the slightest hint of government behaving illegally or unconstitutionally. Relying on individuals to personally bear the full burden of cases like these is a very weak and unreliable mechanic.
That would be bizarre. You have been listening to people with some very odd opinions if you believe that individuals are personally responsible to bear the full burden of cases is an accurate characterization of the situation in the United States. Perhaps by the letter of the law, although even there the characterization is inaccurate, but certainly not in practice.
Despite the alleged weakness and unreliability of the American system in this regard, it has not apparently caused a situation where the people are not able to petition government for redress of grievances, considering the regularity with which momentous cases have played out in the court of law and the court of public opinion throughout American history.
Especially so in the environment when these individuals are relentlessly persecuted by the government. No matter what you may think of the validity of Manning or Snowden's whistleblowing, their combined fates that played out in such a brief time span are bound to discourage any potential whistleblowers with a valid case in the near future.
The word persecution implies that their whistleblowing was in fact totally valid and that there could not possibly be one single good reason for the government to pursue them.
Mind you that Manning leaked the entirety of the war logs and diplomatic cables that he managed to get a copy of, releasing information that did not expose wrongdoing on the part of the United States and that the United States had an expectation and a right to keep confidential. He violated the oath he took when he joined the military as well as the UCMJ. Mind you also that his main intention was to provoke a political debate. Not secure justice in a court of law for any criminals exposed by him, although no doubt he wishes for that too. And he released his information to Julian Assange, who makes no bones about the fact that his intent is to harm the interests of the United States as he views them to be horribly wrong. The same Julian Assange who refused to continue working with the media (and then threw and has continued to throw a ridiculous temper tantrum about them) at least partially because they were raising objections to his methods in releasing the information, their concern being that he was behaving recklessly and indiscriminately.
As for Snowden, in addition to what he has revealed about American governmental spying on Americans, he has revealed also numerous other instances and methods of spying on foreign governments, particularly statements made to Chinese newspapers regarding spying on China. There are no questions of civil liberties and weighty issues of morality when we're talking about peeking in on the government run by the Chinese Communist Party, and yet there he was, spilling the beans to Beijing. What exactly spying on China has to do with whistleblowing about unconstitutional wrongdoing remains a mystery to me at least.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
Who are you to tell me (or anyone else) what I (they) can and can't quote? I served in the USAF for six years during Operations Irqai Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I put my country and everything I love about it before my personal convenience and safety. I have earned the right to quote Ben Franklin and talk about this NSA program any which way I please.
I don't think America is evil, or a police state. However, this NSA program is wrong. I'm all for national security, but I will not simply trust a federal government with this type of program. If we, as a nation, are in so much fear that we would sacrifice such basic freedoms then they are winning the war. I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror if I was such a coward.
While the USA as a whole is not evil, the people in power of it are. And the population closes one eye to it and lives their happy lives.
You would expect a bit more evil to be accomplished by the most powerful people in the world if they were in fact evil.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
Who are you to tell me (or anyone else) what I (they) can and can't quote? I served in the USAF for six years during Operations Irqai Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I put my country and everything I love about it before my personal convenience and safety. I have earned the right to quote Ben Franklin and talk about this NSA program any which way I please.
I don't think America is evil, or a police state. However, this NSA program is wrong. I'm all for national security, but I will not simply trust a federal government with this type of program. If we, as a nation, are in so much fear that we would sacrifice such basic freedoms then they are winning the war. I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror if I was such a coward.
You're an American, that's all the right you need and all the right you need to state. Proclaiming your service is just a respectable way to tell others they don't have as much right to speak about it as you do.
It's a little hard to believe any way they are winning the war. Seems melodramatic. Nevertheless, when it comes to the government, the thin end of the wedge should always be forcefully pushed away from the door.
Oh, indeed. The U.S. judicial system is the epitome of integrity; we all know that apple invented the smooth-edged rectangle.
Consider the case of RIM (now blackberry), a leading-edge canadian technology company which is repeatedly sued by U.S. companies on various patents which they claim are being infringed upon. RIM was sued by a patent-holding company which does no actual business of its own (other than apparently holding patents and making lawsuits) for 5 claims of infringement. The judge ruled in their favor and declared that RIM was not to make blackberry sales or services in the U.S. until the patents expired, but he stayed the ruling pending appeal (the ruling would only go through if RIM's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful).
The case went through several appeals, with RIM attempting to take it to the supreme court. Here's the short of it: first, RIM offered $450M as a settlement. Then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patents and rejected all 5 of them. However, these rejections were "non-final" rejections. The judge in the ongoing case announced that he was considering granting NTP an injunction which would shut down RIM's multi-billion dollar mobile e-mail service. RIM requested that the judge either wait for the USPTO to make it's final judgement on the patents or else grant them an injunction in the case that the patents were "finally" ruled invalid. He simply refused. With the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar service looming over their heads, RIM offered a $600+M settlement, which was accepted by NTP. The patents were later verified to be invalid. Where is the integrity in the approach taken by court in this case?
This company faces constant harassment from U.S. sources, largely due to its competition with U.S. businesses such as Apple. Their phones have the absolute best technology on the market in certain aspects (notably security for virtual transactions) yet they have many other obstacles to overcome.
Your passive acceptance that you cannot hold the government accountable for its actions out of respect for bureaucracy is the void into which all semblance of social justice dissipates.
Amidst all that vehemence you seem to have left out some relevant facts that do not exactly cast your characterization of the judge's actions or several of your assertions in the best light. To wit:
NTP has not been the only company to sue RIM for patent infringement and receive a hefty settlement for it. RIM has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar many times.
RIM was caught trying to deceive the jury and the court in the NTP case. To quote Wikipedia:
During the trial, RIM tried to show that a functional wireless email system was already in the public domain at the time the NTP inventions had been made. This would have invalidated the NTP patents. The prior system was called "System for Automated Messages" (SAM). RIM demonstrated SAM in court and it appeared to work. But the NTP attorneys discovered that RIM was not using vintage SAM software, but a more modern version that came after NTP's inventions were made. Therefore the judge instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration as invalid.
A jury convicted RIM of patent infringement in the case.
The appeals process took over a year. During all this time RIM was making large amounts of money - well more than 600 million dollars - using systems that a jury had decided they had no right to use without compensating NTP. To characterize the situation of poor RIM up against the wall with no choice because of some dick judge is to ignore that RIM had 12 months to negotiate a settlement or to create some software workarounds. Lo and behold, as soon as the courts become impatient with their inability to work a settlement, RIM announces that it has developed software workarounds that would allow them to operate regardless of an injunction.
RIM had 12 months to rectify the situation, but the justice system is awful because after 12 months the judge said enough is enough.
It was discovered that RIM lawyers had attempted to improperly influence patent office officials.
These rulings by the patent office you refer to were appealed by NTP to federal court, with some of them being vacated, others reversed, and the case remanded back to. So they are not as authoritative as you are holding them to be, and in any case, courts cannot and should not delay cases for years waiting on the decision of some bureaucratic office or the outcome of a years-long bureaucratic appeals process that may make its way into the court system as well at some point. NTP had the right to make its claims, it won a jury verdict, it has rights too. Not just RIM.
NTP has also won numerous settlements with other companies over these patents, including Microsoft, Google, and a who's-who list of telecommunications and telecommunications technology companies. I find it highly doubtful that NTP would be able to squeeze these settlements out of some of the most powerful corporations on earth, billions of dollars being talked about here, unless it had at least some merits to its claims.
Somehow, during your diatribe, you failed to mention that RIM had been deemed wrong by a jury. The case went from being filed to appeals? There seems to be a step missing there. Jury verdicts are quite relevant and important to a judge making a ruling on an appeal and on the issue of, uh, issuing injunctions.
The point I'm making is simple -- this whole situation is much bigger than Edward Snowden. Asking the question "is Snowden guilty" allows for him to be found guilty or innocent independent of any subsequent evaluation of the law (or vague and convenient interpretation) which makes him so.
That does not seem to be the only point you are making, and it is not a simple situation so simple points are of little value alone.
In some ideal form, what you are saying is correct, sure. But in reality the law will be respected only when convenient, in the name of patriotism. Given the systemic international criminality of the U.S. government, perhaps there ought to be some concern about the ability of the system to resist corruption.
There seems to be a disconnect between the historical record and your contention that the law is only respected "when convenient."
Ah yes, the systemic international criminality of the US government. Now there's a dog whistle for the peanut gallery.
Who are US officials to speak of their processes as some kind of one true justice? Guantanimo Bay. Rejection of the right to Asylum. Industrial espionage. Secret courts. Maybe in 50 years someone will take these claims of righteousness seriously.
One true justice, lol, where has that phrase been used by US officials to describe their processes?
You are aware, of course, that if terrorists are prisoners of war then they have no right to a trial or to be released at all before the end of the conflict? This seems to be main issue with Guantanamo, that they allegedly have little right or recourse to pursue their release. Yet was there not a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 stating just that? Did not the Supreme Court rule that laws regarding a trial system for terrorists must meet certain standards higher than those created by the executive branch at the time. This did not build on a previous 2004 ruling that terrorists did indeed possess the right of habeas corpus?
Here is a list right here of terrorists released from Guantanamo (included for some reason is a detainee who died while in custody):
It would seem that Guantanamo being the worst thing since Hitler has not prevented the vast majority of detainees held there from being released, to the point where there are 166 detainees there now, where at one point it was over 600.
You are impugning the integrity of numerous federal justices who have hundreds of years of combined distinctive service on the state and the federal bench by saying "secret court" in such a manner in reference to the FISA court. Are all or most of these judges crypto-fascists?
Industrial espionage? Is that some kind of indication that the kitchen sink is going to be thrown at the US next post? You know, France engaged in a lot of industrial espionage against the US in the 1980s and 1990s for all I know still is, China has been engaged in industrial espionage against the whole world from 1949 to today. Who other than those dastardly US officials has ever raised a stink about that? And even they fail to approach the Manichean intensity we see on display here.
And finally, maybe so, but I can guarantee that in 50 years the same impotent ideological fringe of society that is taking your claims seriously now will still be the only ones taking them seriously.
I don't think what he did was correct but I wouldn't call it espionage. If the NSA views the citizens of the US as having no expectation for privacy then why should they have it? If anyone should be charged with espionage it should be people in the US government for signing any of this into law. I've read the many excuses and how helpless some lawmakers feel because there is a huge majority of congressmen that believe passing this through was the right thing to do. I think they are equally as guilty. I guess all we can hope for is that they address the "privacy concerns" that they suddenly care about but not gutting the entire thing. I think the whole spying thing is a load of crap and they are just abusing the fact that the 4th amendment didn't specifically state telephones or internet privacy. I guess they couldn't cause none of that was invented back then. What a crock of shit.
On August 12 2013 19:57 Baarn wrote: I don't think what he did was correct but I wouldn't call it espionage. If the NSA views the citizens of the US as having no expectation for privacy then why should they have it? If anyone should be charged with espionage it should be people in the US government for signing any of this into law. I've read the many excuses and how helpless some lawmakers feel because there is a huge majority of congressmen that believe passing this through was the right thing to do. I think they are equally as guilty. I guess all we can hope for is that they address the "privacy concerns" that they suddenly care about but not gutting the entire thing. I think the whole spying thing is a load of crap and they are just abusing the fact that the 4th amendment didn't specifically state telephones or internet privacy. I guess they couldn't cause none of that was invented back then. What a crock of shit.
I think what Snowden did (revealing NSA's actions) was brave and amazing.
I think snowden running to china was stupid.
We can't put the NSA to court without a testifying witness or physical proof of their wrongdoing. We finally had it, in Snowden. But then e runs off to china/Russia and now can be put on trial for treason. We now must wait for another NSA leak that is brave enough not to run off to enemy states.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
On August 12 2013 19:57 Baarn wrote: I don't think what he did was correct but I wouldn't call it espionage. If the NSA views the citizens of the US as having no expectation for privacy then why should they have it? If anyone should be charged with espionage it should be people in the US government for signing any of this into law. I've read the many excuses and how helpless some lawmakers feel because there is a huge majority of congressmen that believe passing this through was the right thing to do. I think they are equally as guilty. I guess all we can hope for is that they address the "privacy concerns" that they suddenly care about but not gutting the entire thing. I think the whole spying thing is a load of crap and they are just abusing the fact that the 4th amendment didn't specifically state telephones or internet privacy. I guess they couldn't cause none of that was invented back then. What a crock of shit.
I think what Snowden did (revealing NSA's actions) was brave and amazing.
I think snowden running to china was stupid.
We can't put the NSA to court without a testifying witness or physical proof of their wrongdoing. We finally had it, in Snowden. But then e runs off to china/Russia and now can be put on trial for treason. We now must wait for another NSA leak that is brave enough not to run off to enemy states.
It is frustrating.
So you agree when he throw off his own life in order to put some light in the practice of the NSA, but you don't agree when he tries to protect himself from a rather unsecure future in the US. Would you have gone in the street to protect him from suffering the "same" situation as Bradley Manning's ? Do you really think he would have gotten a fair trial ? Don't you think there are national interest in the matter at hand that are way beyond his head ?
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.
Stop trying man it's boring. I was just asking a question, because I have no clue on how the US judicial system works. There are no reason for you to get your american dick out and try to show me how many stars you have printed on it.
And by the way, where are the "higher standing" when the US decide to spy on its own allies ? Didn't they specifically did that out of "good intentions", with "random employees" controlling the entire process, employees such as Snowden.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.
Nobody's tactics involve making arbitrary decisions with no evidence.
The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.
Stop trying man it's boring. I was just asking a question, because I have no clue on how the US judicial system works. There are no reason for you to get your american dick out and try to show me how many stars you have printed on it.
And by the way, where are the "higher standing" when the US decide to spy on its own allies ? Didn't they specifically did that out of "good intentions", with "random employees" controlling the entire process, employees such as Snowden.
Its a huge drawback to the legal system in the US. Gangsters roam free because witnesses won't step forward. Corporations have get away with damn near murder because we require evidence to be present of wrong doing, but we also require that evidence to be lawfully procured.
Me saying "I'm pretty damn sure the NSA is spying on us" is not sufficient evidence. Snowden saying "as a former employee of the NSA I was ordered to spy on US Citizens" is sufficient evidence.
The judge can't yell at the NSA to provide evidence against it for much the same reason that the judge can't yell at random citizens to provide evidence against themselves (5th amendment rights and all that).
What is needed is either a defector or access to the database or access to the corporate orders/commands. NSA isn't giving us 2 of those 3 required evidences and the judicial system isn't allowed to just raid NSA headquarters without proof of guilt in much the same way the judicial system isn't allowed to break into my apartment without proof of guilt.
It just sucks that the proof we had ran off to another country and can be accused of treason and be treated as an enemy of the state making his accusation of wrongdoing become biased and slander. I just wish that Snowden never left the US.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.
I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.
Nobody's tactics involve making arbitrary decisions with no evidence.
The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.
The judicial system isn't allowed to chase after criminals since the judicial system is a third party arbitrator of laws. One party is required to make the accusation and a 2nd party is required to be the accused. The judicial system is the arbitrator of both parties.
Without someone accusing it, the NSA is left to roam free.
The US does not believe in Rambo judges chasing after evil like they were Daredevil.
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.
This.
In the end it boils down to how much faith does one have in the US federal courts. Perhaps it calls for a new court system in where government contractor and government branch employees are able to legally fight (albeit in secrecy or private settings) questionable or unlawful practices from inside these organizations, without having to bring everything to the public and maintaining immunity.
Is such a system even possible because it contradicts the characteristics of existing courts in the US?
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote: The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.
This.
In the end it boils down to how much faith does one have in the US federal courts. Perhaps it calls for a new court system in where government contractor and government branches employees are able to legally fight (albeit in secrecy or private settings) questionable or unlawful practices from inside these organizations, without having to bring everything to the public.
Is such a system even possible because it contradicts the characteristics of existing courts in the US?
There is technically a court assigned to keep watch of the NSA. But since they were kept as a secret from the public they just rubber stamped everything as an okay.
Oh, indeed. The U.S. judicial system is the epitome of integrity; we all know that apple invented the smooth-edged rectangle.
Consider the case of RIM (now blackberry), a leading-edge canadian technology company which is repeatedly sued by U.S. companies on various patents which they claim are being infringed upon. RIM was sued by a patent-holding company which does no actual business of its own (other than apparently holding patents and making lawsuits) for 5 claims of infringement. The judge ruled in their favor and declared that RIM was not to make blackberry sales or services in the U.S. until the patents expired, but he stayed the ruling pending appeal (the ruling would only go through if RIM's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful).
The case went through several appeals, with RIM attempting to take it to the supreme court. Here's the short of it: first, RIM offered $450M as a settlement. Then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patents and rejected all 5 of them. However, these rejections were "non-final" rejections. The judge in the ongoing case announced that he was considering granting NTP an injunction which would shut down RIM's multi-billion dollar mobile e-mail service. RIM requested that the judge either wait for the USPTO to make it's final judgement on the patents or else grant them an injunction in the case that the patents were "finally" ruled invalid. He simply refused. With the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar service looming over their heads, RIM offered a $600+M settlement, which was accepted by NTP. The patents were later verified to be invalid. Where is the integrity in the approach taken by court in this case?
This company faces constant harassment from U.S. sources, largely due to its competition with U.S. businesses such as Apple. Their phones have the absolute best technology on the market in certain aspects (notably security for virtual transactions) yet they have many other obstacles to overcome.
Your passive acceptance that you cannot hold the government accountable for its actions out of respect for bureaucracy is the void into which all semblance of social justice dissipates.
Amidst all that vehemence you seem to have left out some relevant facts that do not exactly cast your characterization of the judge's actions or several of your assertions in the best light. To wit:
NTP has not been the only company to sue RIM for patent infringement and receive a hefty settlement for it. RIM has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar many times.
I believe I made that clear, minus the assumption that settlement implies guilt.
RIM was caught trying to deceive the jury and the court in the NTP case. To quote Wikipedia:
During the trial, RIM tried to show that a functional wireless email system was already in the public domain at the time the NTP inventions had been made. This would have invalidated the NTP patents. The prior system was called "System for Automated Messages" (SAM). RIM demonstrated SAM in court and it appeared to work. But the NTP attorneys discovered that RIM was not using vintage SAM software, but a more modern version that came after NTP's inventions were made. Therefore the judge instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration as invalid.
Just because they used a more recent version of SAM doesn't mean they did so to intentionally deceive the courts. You make no mention here that the modern version drew in any way upon NTP's invalid patents.
A jury convicted RIM of patent infringement in the case.
The appeals process took over a year. During all this time RIM was making large amounts of money - well more than 600 million dollars - using systems that a jury had decided they had no right to use without compensating NTP. To characterize the situation of poor RIM up against the wall with no choice because of some dick judge is to ignore that RIM had 12 months to negotiate a settlement or to create some software workarounds. Lo and behold, as soon as the courts become impatient with their inability to work a settlement, RIM announces that it has developed software workarounds that would allow them to operate regardless of an injunction.
If they didn't make such an announcement they would have taken a considerable PR & stock exchange hit. It's hard to say how effective their workarounds would have been, but clearly they felt it was worth 600M to maintain the existing system.
RIM had 12 months to rectify the situation, but the justice system is awful because after 12 months the judge said enough is enough.
It was discovered that RIM lawyers had attempted to improperly influence patent office officials.
Without a source I must assume that this is false. From what I can tell, according to NTP, a Canadian government official attempted to speak to the PTO on behalf of a Canadian company being tried in a U.S. court. God forbid the voice of a defendant be heard.
These rulings by the patent office you refer to were appealed by NTP to federal court, with some of them being vacated, others reversed, and the case remanded back to. So they are not as authoritative as you are holding them to be, and in any case, courts cannot and should not delay cases for years waiting on the decision of some bureaucratic office or the outcome of a years-long bureaucratic appeals process that may make its way into the court system as well at some point. NTP had the right to make its claims, it won a jury verdict, it has rights too. Not just RIM.
So your argument is that because the courts later overturned the findings of the PTO, they were correct in ignoring their findings to begin with. They were not authoritative, well obviously, that was the problem in the case. What's curious is the existence of a government body devoted solely to the evaluation of patents without power to enforce their determinations. It's unfortunate for canadians that while being tried in US courts even the official US institutions (i.e. the theoretically "proper channels") hold no power to ensure that their rights are respected.
NTP has also won numerous settlements with other companies over these patents, including Microsoft, Google, and a who's-who list of telecommunications and telecommunications technology companies. I find it highly doubtful that NTP would be able to squeeze these settlements out of some of the most powerful corporations on earth, billions of dollars being talked about here, unless it had at least some merits to its claims.
Well if you find it highly doubtful, I can't argue with that. Really, you bring this up as support for your argument?
Somehow, during your diatribe, you failed to mention that RIM had been deemed wrong by a jury. The case went from being filed to appeals? There seems to be a step missing there. Jury verdicts are quite relevant and important to a judge making a ruling on an appeal and on the issue of, uh, issuing injunctions.
The point I'm making is simple -- this whole situation is much bigger than Edward Snowden. Asking the question "is Snowden guilty" allows for him to be found guilty or innocent independent of any subsequent evaluation of the law (or vague and convenient interpretation) which makes him so.
That does not seem to be the only point you are making, and it is not a simple situation so simple points are of little value alone.
In some ideal form, what you are saying is correct, sure. But in reality the law will be respected only when convenient, in the name of patriotism. Given the systemic international criminality of the U.S. government, perhaps there ought to be some concern about the ability of the system to resist corruption.
There seems to be a disconnect between the historical record and your contention that the law is only respected "when convenient."
Ah yes, the systemic international criminality of the US government. Now there's a dog whistle for the peanut gallery.
Who are US officials to speak of their processes as some kind of one true justice? Guantanimo Bay. Rejection of the right to Asylum. Industrial espionage. Secret courts. Maybe in 50 years someone will take these claims of righteousness seriously.
One true justice, lol, where has that phrase been used by US officials to describe their processes?
The US is the only country in the world that believes Snowden should be returned to them and have his basic human rights ignored. That is the justice being called for. Even while many Americans don't think that way, it is seen as a serious likelyhood, which brings me to Guantanimo.
You are aware, of course, that if terrorists are prisoners of war then they have no right to a trial or to be released at all before the end of the conflict? This seems to be main issue with Guantanamo, that they allegedly have little right or recourse to pursue their release. Yet was there not a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 stating just that? Did not the Supreme Court rule that laws regarding a trial system for terrorists must meet certain standards higher than those created by the executive branch at the time. This did not build on a previous 2004 ruling that terrorists did indeed possess the right of habeas corpus?
Here is a list right here of terrorists released from Guantanamo (included for some reason is a detainee who died while in custody):
It would seem that Guantanamo being the worst thing since Hitler has not prevented the vast majority of detainees held there from being released, to the point where there are 166 detainees there now, where at one point it was over 600.
Allow me to help you with this, as you seem to have inadvertently brushed over the minor issue of torture, humiliation and utter disregard for human dignity that occurs here. Oh right, that.
You are impugning the integrity of numerous federal justices who have hundreds of years of combined distinctive service on the state and the federal bench by saying "secret court" in such a manner in reference to the FISA court. Are all or most of these judges crypto-fascists?
Okay, apparently this needs to be said: A government with too much power becomes corrupt. That's why we have elections, that's why the system has safeguards built into it. That's why the concept of government transparency is relevant. Secret courts subvert the system which attempts to ensure that your country is run "by the people, for the people", because the people have no fucking clue what's going on now do they? You can't even defend your right not to be spied upon because the government has the power and calls the shots.
Industrial espionage? Is that some kind of indication that the kitchen sink is going to be thrown at the US next post? You know, France engaged in a lot of industrial espionage against the US in the 1980s and 1990s for all I know still is, China has been engaged in industrial espionage against the whole world from 1949 to today. Who other than those dastardly US officials has ever raised a stink about that? And even they fail to approach the Manichean intensity we see on display here.
Your point escapes me. As far as my personal views are concerned, I can only go where my feelings and thoughts take me. I believe in justice and fairness, and as I see it trampled upon time and again, not by individuals but by the most powerful nation in the world, I find it hard to maintain a dull and measured demeanor. Would you portray me as a radical for my stern condemnation of 1. subverting the american constitution, 2. a pronounced lack of respect for international allies and laws, 3. war crimes, or some combination of the three?
And finally, maybe so, but I can guarantee that in 50 years the same impotent ideological fringe of society that is taking your claims seriously now will still be the only ones taking them seriously.
My penis works just fine, thank you. And by the way, that fringe you refer to is marked by the border of the United states of America; you may want to take a look outside sometime. If you still think offenses to human dignity are meaningless or some kind of an acceptable grey-area, I can only hope that someone arrives at your doorstep to alleviate you of your own.
Oh, indeed. The U.S. judicial system is the epitome of integrity; we all know that apple invented the smooth-edged rectangle.
Consider the case of RIM (now blackberry), a leading-edge canadian technology company which is repeatedly sued by U.S. companies on various patents which they claim are being infringed upon. RIM was sued by a patent-holding company which does no actual business of its own (other than apparently holding patents and making lawsuits) for 5 claims of infringement. The judge ruled in their favor and declared that RIM was not to make blackberry sales or services in the U.S. until the patents expired, but he stayed the ruling pending appeal (the ruling would only go through if RIM's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful).
The case went through several appeals, with RIM attempting to take it to the supreme court. Here's the short of it: first, RIM offered $450M as a settlement. Then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patents and rejected all 5 of them. However, these rejections were "non-final" rejections. The judge in the ongoing case announced that he was considering granting NTP an injunction which would shut down RIM's multi-billion dollar mobile e-mail service. RIM requested that the judge either wait for the USPTO to make it's final judgement on the patents or else grant them an injunction in the case that the patents were "finally" ruled invalid. He simply refused. With the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar service looming over their heads, RIM offered a $600+M settlement, which was accepted by NTP. The patents were later verified to be invalid. Where is the integrity in the approach taken by court in this case?
This company faces constant harassment from U.S. sources, largely due to its competition with U.S. businesses such as Apple. Their phones have the absolute best technology on the market in certain aspects (notably security for virtual transactions) yet they have many other obstacles to overcome.
Your passive acceptance that you cannot hold the government accountable for its actions out of respect for bureaucracy is the void into which all semblance of social justice dissipates.
Amidst all that vehemence you seem to have left out some relevant facts that do not exactly cast your characterization of the judge's actions or several of your assertions in the best light. To wit:
NTP has not been the only company to sue RIM for patent infringement and receive a hefty settlement for it. RIM has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar many times.
I believe I made that clear, minus the assumption that settlement implies guilt.
RIM was caught trying to deceive the jury and the court in the NTP case. To quote Wikipedia:
During the trial, RIM tried to show that a functional wireless email system was already in the public domain at the time the NTP inventions had been made. This would have invalidated the NTP patents. The prior system was called "System for Automated Messages" (SAM). RIM demonstrated SAM in court and it appeared to work. But the NTP attorneys discovered that RIM was not using vintage SAM software, but a more modern version that came after NTP's inventions were made. Therefore the judge instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration as invalid.
Just because they used a more recent version of SAM doesn't mean they did so to intentionally deceive the courts. You make no mention here that the modern version drew in any way upon NTP's invalid patents.
A jury convicted RIM of patent infringement in the case.
The appeals process took over a year. During all this time RIM was making large amounts of money - well more than 600 million dollars - using systems that a jury had decided they had no right to use without compensating NTP. To characterize the situation of poor RIM up against the wall with no choice because of some dick judge is to ignore that RIM had 12 months to negotiate a settlement or to create some software workarounds. Lo and behold, as soon as the courts become impatient with their inability to work a settlement, RIM announces that it has developed software workarounds that would allow them to operate regardless of an injunction.
If they didn't make such an announcement they would have taken a considerable PR & stock exchange hit. It's hard to say how effective their workarounds would have been, but clearly they felt it was worth 600M to maintain the existing system.
RIM had 12 months to rectify the situation, but the justice system is awful because after 12 months the judge said enough is enough.
It was discovered that RIM lawyers had attempted to improperly influence patent office officials.
Without a source I must assume that this is false. From what I can tell, according to NTP, a Canadian government official attempted to speak to the PTO on behalf of a Canadian company being tried in a U.S. court. God forbid the voice of a defendant be heard.
These rulings by the patent office you refer to were appealed by NTP to federal court, with some of them being vacated, others reversed, and the case remanded back to. So they are not as authoritative as you are holding them to be, and in any case, courts cannot and should not delay cases for years waiting on the decision of some bureaucratic office or the outcome of a years-long bureaucratic appeals process that may make its way into the court system as well at some point. NTP had the right to make its claims, it won a jury verdict, it has rights too. Not just RIM.
So your argument is that because the courts later overturned the findings of the PTO, they were correct in ignoring their findings to begin with. They were not authoritative, well obviously, that was the problem in the case. What's curious is the existence of a government body devoted solely to the evaluation of patents without power to enforce their determinations. It's unfortunate for canadians that while being tried in US courts even the official US institutions (i.e. the theoretically "proper channels") hold no power to ensure that their rights are respected.
NTP has also won numerous settlements with other companies over these patents, including Microsoft, Google, and a who's-who list of telecommunications and telecommunications technology companies. I find it highly doubtful that NTP would be able to squeeze these settlements out of some of the most powerful corporations on earth, billions of dollars being talked about here, unless it had at least some merits to its claims.
Well if you find it highly doubtful, I can't argue with that. Really, you bring this up as support for your argument?
Somehow, during your diatribe, you failed to mention that RIM had been deemed wrong by a jury. The case went from being filed to appeals? There seems to be a step missing there. Jury verdicts are quite relevant and important to a judge making a ruling on an appeal and on the issue of, uh, issuing injunctions.
The point I'm making is simple -- this whole situation is much bigger than Edward Snowden. Asking the question "is Snowden guilty" allows for him to be found guilty or innocent independent of any subsequent evaluation of the law (or vague and convenient interpretation) which makes him so.
That does not seem to be the only point you are making, and it is not a simple situation so simple points are of little value alone.
In some ideal form, what you are saying is correct, sure. But in reality the law will be respected only when convenient, in the name of patriotism. Given the systemic international criminality of the U.S. government, perhaps there ought to be some concern about the ability of the system to resist corruption.
There seems to be a disconnect between the historical record and your contention that the law is only respected "when convenient."
Ah yes, the systemic international criminality of the US government. Now there's a dog whistle for the peanut gallery.
Who are US officials to speak of their processes as some kind of one true justice? Guantanimo Bay. Rejection of the right to Asylum. Industrial espionage. Secret courts. Maybe in 50 years someone will take these claims of righteousness seriously.
One true justice, lol, where has that phrase been used by US officials to describe their processes?
The US is the only country in the world that believes Snowden should be returned to them and have his basic human rights ignored. That is the justice being called for. Even while many Americans don't think that way, it is seen as a serious likelyhood, which brings me to Guantanimo.
You are aware, of course, that if terrorists are prisoners of war then they have no right to a trial or to be released at all before the end of the conflict? This seems to be main issue with Guantanamo, that they allegedly have little right or recourse to pursue their release. Yet was there not a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 stating just that? Did not the Supreme Court rule that laws regarding a trial system for terrorists must meet certain standards higher than those created by the executive branch at the time. This did not build on a previous 2004 ruling that terrorists did indeed possess the right of habeas corpus?
Here is a list right here of terrorists released from Guantanamo (included for some reason is a detainee who died while in custody):
It would seem that Guantanamo being the worst thing since Hitler has not prevented the vast majority of detainees held there from being released, to the point where there are 166 detainees there now, where at one point it was over 600.
Allow me to help you with this, as you seem to have inadvertently brushed over the minor issue of torture, humiliation and utter disregard for human dignity that occurs here. Oh right, that.
You are impugning the integrity of numerous federal justices who have hundreds of years of combined distinctive service on the state and the federal bench by saying "secret court" in such a manner in reference to the FISA court. Are all or most of these judges crypto-fascists?
Okay, apparently this needs to be said: A government with too much power becomes corrupt. That's why we have elections, that's why the system has safeguards built into it. That's why the concept of government transparency is relevant. Secret courts subvert the system which attempts to ensure that your country is run "by the people, for the people", because the people have no fucking clue what's going on now do they? You can't even defend your right not to be spied upon because the government has the power and calls the shots.
Industrial espionage? Is that some kind of indication that the kitchen sink is going to be thrown at the US next post? You know, France engaged in a lot of industrial espionage against the US in the 1980s and 1990s for all I know still is, China has been engaged in industrial espionage against the whole world from 1949 to today. Who other than those dastardly US officials has ever raised a stink about that? And even they fail to approach the Manichean intensity we see on display here.
Your point escapes me. As far as my personal views are concerned, I can only go where my feelings and thoughts take me. I believe in justice and fairness, and as I see it trampled upon time and again, not by individuals but by the most powerful nation in the world, I find it hard to maintain a dull and measured demeanor. Would you portray me as a radical for my stern condemnation of 1. subverting the american constitution, 2. a pronounced lack of respect for international allies and laws, 3. war crimes, or some combination of the three?
And finally, maybe so, but I can guarantee that in 50 years the same impotent ideological fringe of society that is taking your claims seriously now will still be the only ones taking them seriously.
My penis works just fine, thank you. And by the way, that fringe you refer to is marked by the border of the United states of America; you may want to take a look outside sometime. If you still think offenses to human dignity are meaningless or some kind of an acceptable grey-area, I can only hope that someone arrives at your doorstep to alleviate you of your own.
I am still unclear as to how any of this relates to Snowden running away to China/Russia and being tried for possibly trading secrets with those countries.
I also don't understand your insistence on Guantanamo/Torture as the only possible resolution to Snowden returning to the US.
Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
He's guilty of treason/terrorism, which are both crimes that have non-specific labels meaning he is guilty of doing something the government doesn't like. So anyone the government says is guilty of those crimes, they are guilty of those crimes because the crime could be chewing gum on a bus that has people afraid of gum chewing. That would bring fear aka terror.
Or since he wrote a letter to Putin that could be labeled as treason for talking with someone outside of the US government. The umbrella those two crimes fall under are huge.
We can now kill US citizen terrorists without a trial so who cares if he is guilty or not. I say we just sit back and let if affect the US society as much as we all know it will.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
I think the occupy movement is still on-going just not getting any air time. Nothing is happening because people don't want to riot, they want peaceful protest and those kinds of actions take years and years before they accomplish things. We can't just overthrow one of the most powerful military governments with force, too many deaths. Anyone who does try will get labeled a terrorist.
Do not try to start an angry mob, the death toll will be abhorrent and peaceful protest while slow lasts longer. I advocate peaceful protest over any other method.
On August 30 2013 13:19 Nacl(Draq) wrote: He's guilty of treason/terrorism, which are both crimes that have non-specific labels meaning he is guilty of doing something the government doesn't like. So anyone the government says is guilty of those crimes, they are guilty of those crimes because the crime could be chewing gum on a bus that has people afraid of gum chewing. That would bring fear aka terror.
Or since he wrote a letter to Putin that could be labeled as treason for talking with someone outside of the US government. The umbrella those two crimes fall under are huge.
We can now kill US citizen terrorists without a trial so who cares if he is guilty or not. I say we just sit back and let if affect the US society as much as we all know it will.
Guilty of terrorism has many grades of punishment.
Treason only has one punishment--the death penalty.
It depends on how his actions are argued.
If he is seen as a citizen of the united states deciding, on his own, to give secret information to enemy states, then he is trialed for treason.
If he is seen as an agent of an enemy body performing acts to destabilize or harm the United states, then he will be trialed for terrorism.
The Government doesn't just throw accusations wily nily--it's based off of precedent. He is currently being chased after for being a government employee running off in hiding in a foreign nation, and accused of trading secrets for his asylum. That makes it treason, not terrorism. If he was just branded a terrorist, they would just send in secret forces and kill him. He isn't branded a terrorist, so he has to be discussed more publicly.
Treason is the death penalty, but only after a trial of his peers. Him being a citizen and not a soldier means that he has to be trialed by public courts and not martial courts.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
I think the occupy movement is still on-going just not getting any air time. Nothing is happening because people don't want to riot, they want peaceful protest and those kinds of actions take years and years before they accomplish things. We can't just overthrow one of the most powerful military governments with force, too many deaths. Anyone who does try will get labeled a terrorist.
Do not try to start an angry mob, the death toll will be abhorrent and peaceful protest while slow lasts longer. I advocate peaceful protest over any other method.
The occupy movement attempted to do what the civil rights movement did--cause a ruckus through sit ins and protests. MLK, Malcolm X, alabama walks, the bus tours, all of those things that happened during the civil rights movement was violent and bloody, and led to deaths and riots.
The occupy movement attempted to bring that back to the fold--but as Malvina Reynolds said, "it isn't nice to go to jail." As much as people *think* that they don't like America as it is, they actually feel okay enough about the America to just ignore the movements happening right now. In CA alone occupy movements are everywhere protecting schools, libraries, and parks. It has students, youth, etc... all part of it. It is alive and well, but ever since police started hitting protesters Americans stopped wanting to fix its problems.
On August 30 2013 13:24 imperator-xy wrote: do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
I find it slightly odd that more often than not, it is a non-American that uses this line in this thread.
The answer to an intelligence organization overstepping reasonable bounds is not to revolt. The NSA was already being investigated for potential overreach even before Snowden came into the picture - he just made the case more public.
For good measure: Manning's trial was what it was because he was a soldier. He voluntarily agreed to give up many civil liberties when he joined the military. Snowden would get a normal trial.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
sadly, that's the mindset in america these days. in the 1700's a patriot was someone who fought for justice.
in 2013, a patriot is a sheep of the government and media
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
sadly, that's the mindset in america these days. in the 1700's a patriot was someone who fought for justice.
in 2013, a patriot is a sheep of the government and media
I love the founding idea of my country, but this sentiment is all too true. I absolutely hate what the US has become. It's disgusting.
On August 30 2013 13:24 imperator-xy wrote: do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
I find it slightly odd that more often than not, it is a non-American that uses this line in this thread.
The answer to an intelligence organization overstepping reasonable bounds is not to revolt. The NSA was already being investigated for potential overreach even before Snowden came into the picture - he just made the case more public.
For good measure: Manning's trial was what it was because he was a soldier. He voluntarily agreed to give up many civil liberties when he joined the military. Snowden would get a normal trial.
It comes from non-Americans because we think we have a clearer picture of what is going with your liberty's because of extremely biased news coverage inside America. Now you can argue whether or not that is true but that is the reason.
As for Snowden compared to Manning. I wish i shared your belief in the justice system. The mere fact he was held for 3 years before trial doesn't bode well for anyone following in his footsteps. Its easy to have faith in a fair trial when its not your life on the line.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
No, leaking highly secret information that no longer has anything to do with what he original "I'm being a hero" claim of information he released in the first place is what paints a clear picture of his intentions. He is doing what Bradly Manning did, release all and everything he could get his hands on.
The fact he went to China and Russia, two countries that are the biggest countries when it comes to spying on the United States shows he was probably willing to allow both countries to gain that information. He knew he would be safe with the expectation he continues leaking information. It is common sense. Of course someone who plans to commit treason isn't going to stay in the united states.
Their airport debacle was all a show. He won't be leaving russia.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
No, leaking highly secret information that no longer has anything to do with what he original "I'm being a hero" claim of information he released in the first place is what paints a clear picture of his intentions. He is doing what Bradly Manning did, release all and everything he could get his hands on.
The fact he went to China and Russia, two countries that are the biggest countries when it comes to spying on the United States shows he was probably willing to allow both countries to gain that information. He knew he would be safe with the expectation he continues leaking information. It is common sense. Of course someone who plans to commit treason isn't going to stay in the united states.
Their airport debacle was all a show. He won't be leaving russia.
You are speculating. What makes you think the Russians don't have the information anyway? Unlike the general population, the Russian secret services are probably very well informed about the NSA's spy programme.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
No, leaking highly secret information that no longer has anything to do with what he original "I'm being a hero" claim of information he released in the first place is what paints a clear picture of his intentions. He is doing what Bradly Manning did, release all and everything he could get his hands on.
The fact he went to China and Russia, two countries that are the biggest countries when it comes to spying on the United States shows he was probably willing to allow both countries to gain that information. He knew he would be safe with the expectation he continues leaking information. It is common sense. Of course someone who plans to commit treason isn't going to stay in the united states.
Their airport debacle was all a show. He won't be leaving russia.
You are speculating. What makes you think the Russians don't have the information anyway? Unlike the general population, the Russian secret services are probably very well informed about the NSA's spy programme.
Russia having the information does not mean Snowden isn't trying to sell the information.
Just as Snowden providing information to russia does not automatically mean he is trying to harm the US.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
No, leaking highly secret information that no longer has anything to do with what he original "I'm being a hero" claim of information he released in the first place is what paints a clear picture of his intentions. He is doing what Bradly Manning did, release all and everything he could get his hands on.
The fact he went to China and Russia, two countries that are the biggest countries when it comes to spying on the United States shows he was probably willing to allow both countries to gain that information. He knew he would be safe with the expectation he continues leaking information. It is common sense. Of course someone who plans to commit treason isn't going to stay in the united states.
Their airport debacle was all a show. He won't be leaving russia.
As far as I have read, the continuous leaks are done by journalists at their own discretion. IIRC Mr. Greenwald mentioned that he got tens of thousands of pages to dig through from Snowden so I wouldn't say Snowden has much of the blame to take on the latest leaks. Journalists will be who you should blame for that, but then you are getting into another issue entirely.
The fact that he went to China (Hong Kong which is technically a bit different) and Russia is likely more a result of knowing more about them, for obvious reasons and because they are geopolitically strong enough to withstand US pressure for extradition. No EU/common wealth country is capable of that or willing to do that!
the only reason he went to Russia and China is because the US government has very little influence there and its also unlikely to be targeted by an CIA hitsquad.
All Eu countries would give him to the US, all small countries cant do anything against the US killing him with drones or special units.
because they are geopolitically strong enough to withstand US pressure for extradition. No EU/common wealth country is capable of that or willing to do that!
Noooo, that can't be! That would be a smart assumption and would totally not fit under the tinfoil hat.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
if he stayed in the us while leaking those information, he would probably go to prison for decades, which is not what he wants as he is a human being. it could be even worse, they could torture him because he is a huge threat to national security as long as theres still leaked information out there that hasnt been released.
No, leaking highly secret information that no longer has anything to do with what he original "I'm being a hero" claim of information he released in the first place is what paints a clear picture of his intentions. He is doing what Bradly Manning did, release all and everything he could get his hands on.
The fact he went to China and Russia, two countries that are the biggest countries when it comes to spying on the United States shows he was probably willing to allow both countries to gain that information. He knew he would be safe with the expectation he continues leaking information. It is common sense. Of course someone who plans to commit treason isn't going to stay in the united states.
Their airport debacle was all a show. He won't be leaving russia.
If he really wanted to harm the US, he would have taken the information, sold it to China AND Russia, and then stayed hidden in some other country where noone knew who he was. He seems to have covered his tracks in terms of actually getting the information.
If he wanted to harm the US by aiding its "enemies", then he could have done so without having the public involved at all. Surely the very fact he went public with the information should be a massive clue that he wasn't trying to aid "opponents" of the US.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Snowden made an enemy of the US when he went PUBLIC, so he went to the logical friends, other people who aren't totally buddy buddy with the US.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can understand why he went to the places he went. They are SAFE.
Considering the monumental oversight and information failures with regard to the NSA that have come to light, can you honestly say that you believe he doesn't know more than you that his actions seem reasonable? Initially it may have seemed like it was not necessary to leak all this information publically, but as more and more information comes out, and the NSA gets found lying and wanting again and again, surely you must start to reconsider your position on the whole thing.
Snowden was likely already aware of the failures with regard to "the system" which led to crap oversight and complete blindness at the highest levels of accountable and elected government, so he went over their head, to the media, the only real way to get anything out there and considered.
On August 30 2013 13:24 imperator-xy wrote: do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
I find it slightly odd that more often than not, it is a non-American that uses this line in this thread.
The answer to an intelligence organization overstepping reasonable bounds is not to revolt. The NSA was already being investigated for potential overreach even before Snowden came into the picture - he just made the case more public.
For good measure: Manning's trial was what it was because he was a soldier. He voluntarily agreed to give up many civil liberties when he joined the military. Snowden would get a normal trial.
It comes from non-Americans because we think we have a clearer picture of what is going with your liberty's because of extremely biased news coverage inside America. Now you can argue whether or not that is true but that is the reason.
As for Snowden compared to Manning. I wish i shared your belief in the justice system. The mere fact he was held for 3 years before trial doesn't bode well for anyone following in his footsteps. Its easy to have faith in a fair trial when its not your life on the line.
The United States has been like this for over 200 years. Even the founding fathers knew that they would need a strong government with the power to fight its enemies.
Most educated Americans take a class on US history and US government. I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest that maybe most foreigners don't, so they misinterpret US ideals quite recklessly.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you.
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info
which Snowden didn't
wasn't trying to commit treason.
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Russia got us good on this one.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work).
Snowden's move to leak information to the media might be considered heroic by some, but in fact he has not only broken the law but also betrayed his employer (which would be his own country). That's treason all right.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
How is it not? He reportedly got the job he did for the sole purpose of being able to gain information to leak. He is not just sharing information about our freedoms, he is leaking everything he knows one week at a time. How is our satellite program and cell phone intercepting of Osama Bin Ladan overseas have anything to do with America's rights? It doesn't. How about disclosing the fact he knows where a large number of safe houses are over seas?
He wants to harm our country, not support our rights. It is oh so convenient after a man who intentional gained information for the purpose of leaking it goes to china, and now russia. You really think he has America's interest in his concern? give me a break.
He is going to live a prosperous life in russia.
if going to china and russia after leaking highly secret information is a reason that he just wants to harm the us to you, then i dont think you quite understand this right.
Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you.
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info
which Snowden didn't
wasn't trying to commit treason.
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Russia got us good on this one.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work).
Snowden's move to leak information to the media might be considered heroic by some, but in fact he has not only broken the law but also betrayed his employer (which would be his own country). That's treason all right.
Minor technicality on the last part--what snowden did *can* be argued as treasonous depending how malicious they can show snowden's intent was. When it was just Snowden talking to the media this was harder to prove. Now that its snowden possibly selling secrets to china/Russia, maliciousness is easier to prove.
Manning was a military trial involving her breaking of orders and her breaking of military secracy--military trial is different from civilian trial in that you are not judged by your peers, you're judged by military courts. They just need to prove that manning broke direct orders. This is different from the snowden trial where they have to prove maliciousness of snowden's intent.
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote: The problem is that the government has the right to classify certain information. Full transparency is all nice and dandy on paper but could do more harm than good in practice. After all, you're voting to pick your government, which means you pick people you trust and if they're hiding something from you it's probably for your own good or not relevant to you at all (at least that's how it should work).
As far as the US goes it's been both said and shown that there's a serious over-classification in place where things just get classified because why not. In a more general sense, politicians love being able to hide their mistakes through classification so the more transparent the better.
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote: Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
"politically inconvenient" ? Has nothing to do with politics. He is a traitor who could care less about American safety just so he can be in the news.
And yes, he did intentionally get a role that would allow him to gain more access.
It makes no difference if he sells the info or hands it out to the media. Giving away secrets with malicious intent is all the same. He doesn't like our country.
I am glad you know what year we live in. /Golf clap. Do you think spy programs have downsized? No, they haven't. Foreign spies target people like Snowden all the time in hopes to gain secrets through money, sex, or drugs.
Where in my posts have I hinted at the moronic idea that Russia's spy program created the NSA surveillance program? The hell kind of stupid bullshit are you trying to create? It is hard to take anything serious from you after that statement. Just pure stupidity.
"In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?" I forgot he spoke with CNN or Fox News or any other US news agency. Oh right, he didn't. The universe in which he is now comfortably living in russia, smart ass.
For the few of you that tried to argue my point of him leaking things weekly. Ya, ok he leaked it all at once and the news is catching up. But really, blame the news? Um, no... HE LEAKED THE INFO. Regardless if it happened at once or over time, my point is he leaked EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he could get his hands on.
He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia. He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple. He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media. That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT. The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this. Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
I will assume you're not talking assassinating someone because he's politically inconvenient to you.
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info
which Snowden didn't
wasn't trying to commit treason.
because he didn't sell a state secret to an enemy state, he gave information to the media and the media gave it to everybody. He didn't sell a military secret to a country that's our enemy because he hates America, he donated over-classified information to the people because he likes America.
Russia got us good on this one.
Us and them? It's the 21st century, the world isn't that simple. Are you suggesting that Russia made the NSA create a series of surveillance programs just so that they could embarrass the US government when a random guy with a conscience came along, or are you suggesting that Russia is a terrorist and now that our "national security" has been harmed by these leaks Russia can carry out its terrorist attacks against the US?
In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?
"politically inconvenient" ? Has nothing to do with politics. He is a traitor who could care less about American safety just so he can be in the news.
And yes, he did intentionally get a role that would allow him to gain more access.
It makes no difference if he sells the info or hands it out to the media. Giving away secrets with malicious intent is all the same. He doesn't like our country.
I am glad you know what year we live in. /Golf clap. Do you think spy programs have downsized? No, they haven't. Foreign spies target people like Snowden all the time in hopes to gain secrets through money, sex, or drugs.
Where in my posts have I hinted at the moronic idea that Russia's spy program created the NSA surveillance program? The hell kind of stupid bullshit are you trying to create? It is hard to take anything serious from you after that statement. Just pure stupidity.
"In what universe does a guy telling the American people what its government is doing have anything to do with Russia?" I forgot he spoke with CNN or Fox News or any other US news agency. Oh right, he didn't. The universe in which he is now comfortably living in russia, smart ass.
For the few of you that tried to argue my point of him leaking things weekly. Ya, ok he leaked it all at once and the news is catching up. But really, blame the news? Um, no... HE LEAKED THE INFO. Regardless if it happened at once or over time, my point is he leaked EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he could get his hands on.
Could you explain a better way of doing things? Not making some non-involved people aware is not really an option if the things do look that bad from his view. That is the whole benefit from allowing whistleblowing. I agree that his way of doing it was not very smooth. However, I have a hard time seeing a better alternative. The whistleblower program is beyond useless and going to some random politician with the information is far too risky since trustworthy is a very rare trait in politics unless it is politically convenient. Proper oldschool educated journalists have a certain way of doing things that would give the necessary trust and anonymity which is what a real whistleblower needs.
Have you got any sources on him selling information to the russian or chinese government? I have only heard that he claims the information is encrypted, torture-proof and that he would never give it to foreign governments.
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote: Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote: Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
The world would heavily disagree with you. The US is pretty much in its early stages to becoming a tyrannical state. Killing indiscriminately around the world, punishing whistleblowers with 90 year jail sentences, it's press has become another part of its military wing to spread its propoganda(CNN fox etc).
Also I took one look at that horrendous graph and came to the conclusion that freedomhouse should consider closing house. No offense to Benin and ghana but seriously? Ghana and Benin are 0.5 "freedom" points behind Sweden and Norway? Mongolia is at the same freedom of Japan? Really?
On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote: He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia. He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple. He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media. That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT. The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this. Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape)
In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
On August 31 2013 21:10 Manit0u wrote: Yeah, beacause China and Russia are well-known for their good-hearted nature, respect for civil rights and freedom. Surely the best places to seek refuge as a citizen of the US...
By alone this arguments " respect for civil rights and freedom " he also coulnd´t have gone to the us /shrug
What? Are you being serious right now? Freedomhouse would heavily disagree with you.
No wonder after looking further into freedom house...... Its a CIA office disguised as an "NGO" to do it's clandestine operations and infiltrate nations of the world
The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside Iran.[24
On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate."
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have criticized the organization for excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests while being unduly sympathetic to regimes supportive of US interests.[31] According to Chomsky and Herman, Freedom House described the Rhodesian general election of 1979 as "fair" but found the Southern Rhodesian 1980 elections as "dubious".[31] They said that Freedom House found El Salvador's 1982 election to be "admirable".[31]
On August 30 2013 11:58 jeremycafe wrote: Seems like every week he is releasing yet more information. This guy needs to be hunted down...
Not sure how anyone can still think someone who got a job in his field for the sole purpose of leaking info wasn't trying to commit treason. Russia got us good on this one.
its not about russia or any other country, its about the us
do you guys not respect your ancestors at all? they risked their lives for the freedoms youre giving away without much trouble as it seems
Was thinking the USA people would do something , make him a hero because he did something really good for you guy... And many of you don't even understand that , just reading this topic make me go ''WTF American'' so many times...
You can be sure if someone like him would have do something like that in Europe , people would back I'm up .
Pathetic , seriously , you don't care for your freedom ?
They are law you should expose illegal stuff , but when that the government you should no ?
Double standard , really pathetic... will look how this end , but this sure don't give American a better reputation so far .
Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote: He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia. He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple. He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media. That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT. The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this. Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape)
In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China?
Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name?
How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote: He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia. He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple. He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media. That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT. The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this. Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape)
In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China?
Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name?
How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
Being that I said that both arguments are purely conjecture until evidence is present, I see both comments on his heroism and his heresy as being ridiculous. If we had an actual trial to showing evidence based arguments to inform us what actually happened, we would actually know what happened.
i guess many people don't like the true face of their goverment, but people should aware of what their goverment is up to.
Yes may be the NSA isn't using the information they are gathering in an bad way. But what with the next administration or the one after that, or 10, 20, 30, 50 years later?
We can already see how anti terrorism laws are abused, when convinient. Of course these tools if once gotten, will also be abused in the future. But then it might be to late to "oppose".
On August 31 2013 23:33 Lonyo wrote: He spoke to newspapers, not to Russia. He only went to Russia after the newspapers already had the information.
Also, saying he "doesn't like our country" is stupid. Plain and simple. He doesn't like what the government of the country is doing. He decided to reveal what the government was doing to the people, by going to the media. That sounds to me like maybe he likes the COUNTRY, but not the GOVERNMENT. The government is supposed to represent the people of the country, but he doesn't see that they are. Your accusations of him not liking the country are based on your own personal bias, equally he has his own personal and opposite bias, that the country is dying because those in charge are failing, and as he does like the country, he wants to prevent this. Your opinion is that harming those running the country is something you would only do if you don't like the country.
You must be able to see his perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, last I knew, the WASHINGTON Post is a US news agency. Clue is maybe in the name?
The actual chronology is... contact a non-US newspaper. Then contact a US newspaper. Then leak information and flee to Hong Kong, then go to Russia from HK.
It's not go to Russia, give Russia secrets, then leak things to non-US news media. If you're going to make accusations, at least start with a correct chronology. Russia came after everything else.
This is the assumed chronology. Until we have a trial and evidence is presented on both sides proving the chronology of events, this is all conjecture. Not saying you're wrong, but just because his leaking it on the news came before the whole Russia thing happened does not mean he didn't talk to Russia first (to ensure safety) and then talked to newspapers (once he knew he had an escape)
In either situation evidence would be required which we don't have since he ran away from being trailed.
If he had talked to Russia first, would he not simply have travelled to Russia first to ensure his safety, rather than travelling to Hong Kong, being outed/outing himself, and THEN trying to travel to Russia, risking being refused a flight from HK and being handed over to the US by China?
Or did he first make an agreement with China, then make an agreement with Russia (or Russia then China), THEN speak to the media, THEN leak his name?
How much credit are we going to give him before things start diving into absolute ridiculous Hollywood style levels of absurdity?
Wouldn't it be better for him to simply go to a country that has no extradition treaties with US and is more favorable towards political refugees?
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many unless they are third rate
If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many unless they are third rate
The US justice system is philosophically sound, but sadly, since it hinges on representation and precedence, some lawyers end up being much better at digging up old cases/finding mistakes than others.
That's when money comes in. The better lawyers win more and hence cost more.
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
More like he would be kidnapped and detained while it gets swept under the rug
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
...what would Snowden's lawsuit be about? You realize you have to some kind of claim and ability to show some kind of damages...you dont just show up to court and say 'I feel this sucks and therefore I demand to sue!'
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many unless they are third rate
The US justice system is philosophically sound, but sadly, since it hinges on representation and precedence, some lawyers end up being much better at digging up old cases/finding mistakes than others.
That's when money comes in. The better lawyers win more and hence cost more.
there is no case in the history of America that hinged on someone finding a better precedent case than someone else.
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many unless they are third rate
Do you have any actual experience with the US justice system? This feels like unsubstantiated conjecture to me.
On September 01 2013 00:51 quebecman77 wrote: Poor guy exposed something really illegal , other that make the USA government look pathetic et released no data who would hurts the usa , other that make the government of us look really damn pathetic and illegal .
Running away from a fair and reasonable justice system for no reason other than to avoid punishment is not the mark of an innocent man.
And also, it's utter BS that releasing the inner workings of the NSA would not harm the country. That's pretty important as far as security goes. Exposing specific overreaches would be whistleblowing, but that's not what Snowden did. And FWIW the NSA was and still is being investigated for overreach for programs including PRISM.
If you think your country doesn't have a spy program that does the exact same thing as the NSA, then you are naive. Every country that can gather data will do it.
the usa justice system far far far from reasonable and fair , if you ask , that a damn joke , the guy with the most money never end up in jail , that broken , if he would have stay he would be in your ''private'' prison .
but hey , some country are worst , but not many unless they are third rate
The US justice system is philosophically sound, but sadly, since it hinges on representation and precedence, some lawyers end up being much better at digging up old cases/finding mistakes than others.
That's when money comes in. The better lawyers win more and hence cost more.
there is no case in the history of America that hinged on someone finding a better precedent case than someone else.
Better precedence?
"some lawyers end up being much better at digging up old cases"
I said some lawyers are better at digging up old cases. What the hell does "better precedence" mean?
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
...what would Snowden's lawsuit be about? You realize you have to some kind of claim and ability to show some kind of damages...you dont just show up to court and say 'I feel this sucks and therefore I demand to sue!'
idk...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Specifically
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Specifically
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Wire taps without proper due process Personal information without just compensation etc...
But no, that would be randomly pointing out unconstitutionality of a public institution.
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
It's already well-established that the government can make you waive your First Amendment rights through contract; in fact, the ACLU even cooperated with the CIA to set the guidelines, so good luck getting good representation.
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
It's already well-established that the government can make you waive your First Amendment rights through contract; in fact, the ACLU even cooperated with the CIA to set the guidelines, so good luck getting good representation.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
I don't see how any part of the first amendment is relevant to what we're talking about...
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
...what would Snowden's lawsuit be about? You realize you have to some kind of claim and ability to show some kind of damages...you dont just show up to court and say 'I feel this sucks and therefore I demand to sue!'
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Wire taps without proper due process Personal information without just compensation etc...
But no, that would be randomly pointing out unconstitutionality of a public institution.
and yet weirdly no one has yet managed to use the constitution to argue before a court of law successfully that the patriot act is unconstitutional. i guess they just arent that good at finding past precedent or something. But lets say some random court does decided that legally you can use the 5th amendment in this way, what are the damages he is suing for?
On September 06 2013 06:38 biology]major wrote: If you even remotely care about the constitution of the USA, then you would understand the why behind Snowden. Our rights are being traded for our "security", this is a debate that should be had publicly and let the voters decide on this important issue.
However the NSA has removed the power away from the people, by not being transparent about their actions or at least acknowledging their infringement on privacy. For this reason Snowden gave Americans the chance at truth and see how we would react. We haven't done shit, but atleast he has done his job and got the truth out there, and for that I greatly appreciate his service.
If only someone came to court with a lawsuit against NSA using evidence from the fact that he worked there. Sure, he'd be counter-trialed for breaching contract, but then both cases would legally be on the table. One about the constitutionality of the NSA, the other the illegality of a contract breach.
Sadly, instead we have someone who ran off to another country being charged with treason and selling of information.
...what would Snowden's lawsuit be about? You realize you have to some kind of claim and ability to show some kind of damages...you dont just show up to court and say 'I feel this sucks and therefore I demand to sue!'
idk...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Specifically
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Specifically
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Wire taps without proper due process Personal information without just compensation etc...
But no, that would be randomly pointing out unconstitutionality of a public institution.
and yet weirdly no one has yet managed to use the constitution to argue before a court of law successfully that the patriot act is unconstitutional. i guess they just arent that good at finding past precedent or something. But lets say some random court does decided that legally you can use the 5th amendment in this way, what are the damages he is suing for?
because the Patriot Act was a governmentally discussed and voted on measure that, as a whole, does many things that are legally. The specificity with the Snowden case is that what he can attest that the NSA specifically pay people (he is the evidence/witness for this) to do things that are unconstitutional. The Patriot Act is not on trial, the NSA is not on trial, the NSA practice of paying him to steal information and to bug without evidence is what is on trial.
He can only put in front of the courts what he himself has witnessed/has evidence for. This does not include the Patriot Act, nor does it include the sleeziness of the NSA. This only is about the NSA practice of paying people to steal information and bug without evidence.
It's been a while since this thread was in discussion. Lots of stuff has come out. Most recently though his acts are having great affects on us.
"The New York Times has an interesting story on how NSA put transmitters into the USB input devices of PC, allowing computers unplugged from the Internet to still be monitored, via radio, from up to 8 miles away. The article mainly reports NSA's use of the technology to monitor Chinese military, and minor headline reads 'No Domestic Use Seen'. The source of the data was evidently the leak from Edward J. Snowden."
So, I can agree to some level if you want to argue in favor of him doing right by providing information on domestic affairs. But the job of the NSA and CIA are here to gather information on affairs outside of the US. I'm not great at debating, but in my opinion I think Snowden is more then guilty and wonder why he's getting so many accolades.
Written before this latest news is the best argument for my opinon"
"Fred Kaplan, the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relation, writes at Slate that if Edward Snowden's stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the domestic surveillance by the NSA, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing. But Snowden did much more than that. 'Snowden's documents have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA's interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what's going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls 'worldwide,' an effort that 'allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.' Kaplan says the NYT editorial calling on President Obama to grant Snowden 'some form of clemency' paints an incomplete picture when it claims that Snowden 'stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency's voraciousness.' In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him 'to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.' Snowden got himself placed at the NSA's signals intelligence center in Hawaii says Kaplan for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents. 'It may be telling that Snowden did not release mdash; or at least the recipients of his cache haven't yet published — any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China,' concludes Kaplan. 'If it turned out that Snowden did give information to the Russians or Chinese (or if intelligence assessments show that the leaks did substantial damage to national security, something that hasn't been proved in public), then I'd say all talk of a deal is off — and I assume the Times editorial page would agree."
Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
On January 16 2014 00:00 BisuDagger wrote: So, I can agree to some level if you want to argue in favor of him doing right by providing information on domestic affairs. But the job of the NSA and CIA are here to gather information on affairs outside of the US. I'm not great at debating, but in my opinion I think Snowden is more then guilty and wonder why he's getting so many accolades.
He is getting a lot of support because what the US intelligence agencies are doing is unconstitutional, hurting the privacy of US citizens and people all over the world(all men are granted equal rights?) and brings the US into discredit?
Why does the country that claims to be the 'land of the free and home of the brave' need twenty different intelligence agencies that exceed the costs of other countries whole defense budgets?
And China also is an authoritarian one party state that tells its people how many children they are allowed to have. Does the USA want to become China?
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
I agree, anyone valuing freedom should neither trust China, nor North Korea nor the USA. And yes, the extent of US spying might be even more than the Chinese one, in Europe that is, just based on technical capabilities and the access to international telecommunication nodes. This is even worse by the US, because they were trusted to some extent in the western world, but as it seems, they treat allies (and their own citizens for crying out loud) just the same as enemies. They, or any other government that commits similar crimes (this includes the German one, should they be responsible for similar things, before anyone screams hypocrisy), should relentlessly be exposed and judged for this. The internet should be a means for freedom of speech and sharing of thoughts and promoting the furthering of knowledge, not a tool to monitor the people by a 1984'esque police state. I find it very sad how much our democratic, western culture has deteriorated.
We should protest against this, express how despicable this is for any democracy - accepting this as something unaviodable is nonsense and only strengthens the position of those autocratic governments. Principiis obsta! Imho, Snowden deserves a medal if anything, exposing illegal crimes at the risk of losing everything, maybe even his life.
Standard US policy involving intelligence agency scandals is to deny knowledge of the event, throw someone under the bus, and move on as if nothing happened. For this reason, presidents generally are kept out of the loop of the works of the CIA/NSA/etc.
But honestly, if an intelligence agency isn't borderline illegal, it isn't doing its job right. As long as the information is used responsibly, I don't see any problem with it.
On January 16 2014 00:00 BisuDagger wrote: So, I can agree to some level if you want to argue in favor of him doing right by providing information on domestic affairs. But the job of the NSA and CIA are here to gather information on affairs outside of the US. I'm not great at debating, but in my opinion I think Snowden is more then guilty and wonder why he's getting so many accolades.
He is getting a lot of support because what the US intelligence agencies are doing is unconstitutional, hurting the privacy of US citizens and people all over the world(all men are granted equal rights?) and brings the US into discredit?
Why does the country that claims to be the 'land of the free and home of the brave' need twenty different intelligence agencies that exceed the costs of other countries whole defense budgets?
And China also is an authoritarian one party state that tells its people how many children they are allowed to have. Does the USA want to become China?
He is getting support from a lot of people who want to stick it to the US. Being a powerful country tends to gain enemies all over the world.
Do other countries use the intelligence gathered by the efforts of the US? If so, then there's your answer. And FWIW, by fraction of country GDP, neither the military nor the intelligence budget of the US is abnormally large. It's just a wealthier country. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS (larger % than most but not by all that much)
On January 16 2014 04:30 LegalLord wrote: Do other countries use the intelligence gathered by the efforts of the US? If so, then there's your answer. And FWIW, by fraction of country GDP, neither the military nor the intelligence budget of the US is abnormally large. It's just a wealthier country. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS (larger % than most but not by all that much)
Why would you think it's a good thing to put intelligence spending in relation to a countries wealth? How much you spent on intelligence and military should be solely dependent on what threats you face, and not "Hey our economy grew, more espionage!" Spying on other people isn't an end in itself.
Someone has yet to show what threats the US giant intelligence apparatus is stopping. It's a giant money sink. You could as well let all the intelligence analysts paint pictures of the president.
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
I agree, anyone valuing freedom should neither trust China, nor North Korea nor the USA. And yes, the extent of US spying might be even more than the Chinese one, in Europe that is, just based on technical capabilities and the access to international telecommunication nodes. This is even worse by the US, because they were trusted to some extent in the western world, but as it seems, they treat allies (and their own citizens for crying out loud) just the same as enemies. They, or any other government that commits similar crimes (this includes the German one, should they be responsible for similar things, before anyone screams hypocrisy), should relentlessly be exposed and judged for this. The internet should be a means for freedom of speech and sharing of thoughts and promoting the furthering of knowledge, not a tool to monitor the people by a 1984'esque police state. I find it very sad how much our democratic, western culture has deteriorated.
We should protest against this, express how despicable this is for any democracy - accepting this as something unaviodable is nonsense and only strengthens the position of those autocratic governments. Principiis obsta! Imho, Snowden deserves a medal if anything, exposing illegal crimes at the risk of losing everything, maybe even his life.
The argument that there shouldn't be any spying seems a bit naive to me. Countries will need to observe their own citizens to intercept messages that could lead to criminal/terrorist acts, especially when the vast majority of communication is done online. How else can they ensure a basic level of awareness of whats going on without monitoring the internet in some way?
I feel like the episode where the US was caught spying other countries may have been embarrassing but its not necessarily something that has to be Orwellian. All countries are interested in what happens in other countries behind closed doors, and if they have a reasonable assurance that they won't find out they may take a peek. I'm sure there are far more interesting and meaningful political reasons for looking into another country's affairs, I'm not sure what they are but I imagine there would be some important facts that governments could use to position themselves more advantageously in negotiations or perhaps understand what the other country's perspective on the US is behind closed doors (assuming they don't get caught and make it worse ).
Its easy to blow things out of proportion and say this will lead to 1984, but I think to be honest that is a slippery slope argument and its no more reasonable than the idea that having a gun registry will necessarily lead to the government confiscating everyone's guns and then imposing a tyranny. Governments everywhere need to collect data, and they will need to do it on a large scale. Some lines will be blurred, some will be crossed. Does this mean a tyranny is incoming or it will corrupt democracy? I don't think so. At least no more than corporations and the sheer amount of money needed to be a political candidate has already corrupted democracy.
I think the key thing to remember is, in spite of all this data, how many reports do we hear of people being inexplicably jailed with friends and family confused as to why, except all they know is that family member has anarchist beliefs or is affiliated with Occupy Wall Street? The only thing that happens in America is the same kind of overzealous police brutality that we see everywhere, but I don't see any authoritarian, Orwellian police state brewing.
You could argue that it is a dangerous possibility and could spiral out of control, but for that to happen there would have to be a total breakdown of the justice system and our representatives would have to become authoritarian despots, which I think is pretty unlikely. We would know if the system were being abused, and a lot of things need to go wrong before it can be abused.
Just to finish this already lengthy post, obviously its good to be cautious and question how much the government knows about others as abuses will probably happen especially with all the privatization of intelligence gathering in the US. Just don't blow it too out of proportion!
Looking back on everything now Snowden definitely did the US a service as it is clear the NSA lied about a few things, and I can't really see that as being harmful to the US. He did his service as a whistleblower; those people should be protected.
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
Why should China be the level at which the line is drawn?
You're implying that it doesn't matter what the US does as long as China is worse. China is one of the worst countries, its sounds like to you its ok for the US to be the second worst country in terms of privacy and freedom in the world.
If you compare the US to all other first world countries, the US almost looks like China compared to them.
Is China really a standard we should be comparing to when looking at this issue?
On January 16 2014 00:00 BisuDagger wrote: It's been a while since this thread was in discussion. Lots of stuff has come out. Most recently though his acts are having great affects on us.
"The New York Times has an interesting story on how NSA put transmitters into the USB input devices of PC, allowing computers unplugged from the Internet to still be monitored, via radio, from up to 8 miles away. The article mainly reports NSA's use of the technology to monitor Chinese military, and minor headline reads 'No Domestic Use Seen'. The source of the data was evidently the leak from Edward J. Snowden."
So, I can agree to some level if you want to argue in favor of him doing right by providing information on domestic affairs. But the job of the NSA and CIA are here to gather information on affairs outside of the US. I'm not great at debating, but in my opinion I think Snowden is more then guilty and wonder why he's getting so many accolades.
Written before this latest news is the best argument for my opinon"
"Fred Kaplan, the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relation, writes at Slate that if Edward Snowden's stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the domestic surveillance by the NSA, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing. But Snowden did much more than that. 'Snowden's documents have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA's interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what's going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls 'worldwide,' an effort that 'allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.' Kaplan says the NYT editorial calling on President Obama to grant Snowden 'some form of clemency' paints an incomplete picture when it claims that Snowden 'stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency's voraciousness.' In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him 'to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.' Snowden got himself placed at the NSA's signals intelligence center in Hawaii says Kaplan for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents. 'It may be telling that Snowden did not release mdash; or at least the recipients of his cache haven't yet published — any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, especially Russia or China,' concludes Kaplan. 'If it turned out that Snowden did give information to the Russians or Chinese (or if intelligence assessments show that the leaks did substantial damage to national security, something that hasn't been proved in public), then I'd say all talk of a deal is off — and I assume the Times editorial page would agree."
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
oh I am sure they spy as well, however you have to consider China doesn't have the power to pull off things like demanding google/microsoft to deliver their data. That is why China developed their own operation systems to prevent data getting obtained by the companies.
Hacking is expected, every country spy and China is way behind on spying. the fact that US can have access to other countries' high profile political figurehead mobile phone data just shows how much better US is spying. While China is way behind and has to hack via more obvious and detectable means.
However, NSA is not just about spying between countries, it's spying its own people as well. Countries do regulate people from time to time, China especially on this case, but do they spy at this scale? I highly doubt so. Chinese government is far more concerned about their own political enemies and foreign countries.
And this is what I am most concerned about. Spying on countries? Understandable. Spying on countries' political officials without a bottom line? Arguable. Spying in grand scale on people both in their own country and outside? Definitly a terrifying thought .
And when these spying become more common, we will live in a f-ed up world
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
Why should China be the level at which the line is drawn?
You're implying that it doesn't matter what the US does as long as China is worse. China is one of the worst countries, its sounds like to you its ok for the US to be the second worst country in terms of privacy and freedom in the world.
If you compare the US to all other first world countries, the US almost looks like China compared to them.
Is China really a standard we should be comparing to when looking at this issue?
I wouldn't call China one of the worst countries. Hell, when was the last time they invaded a country on a different continent for oil?
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
Why should China be the level at which the line is drawn?
You're implying that it doesn't matter what the US does as long as China is worse. China is one of the worst countries, its sounds like to you its ok for the US to be the second worst country in terms of privacy and freedom in the world.
If you compare the US to all other first world countries, the US almost looks like China compared to them.
Is China really a standard we should be comparing to when looking at this issue?
I wouldn't call China one of the worst countries. Hell, when was the last time they invaded a country on a different continent for oil?
That statement was made in context of how countries treat their own citizens.
Besides, just because geopolitical circumstances allow one entity to do things that the other can't, doesn't mean the other wouldn't do the same (or worse) in their place or if given a realistic opportunity to do so.
On January 18 2014 22:07 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote:
On January 16 2014 12:05 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On January 16 2014 03:23 BisuDagger wrote:
On January 16 2014 00:41 ETisME wrote: Whether Snowden should be judged as guilty of espionage does not matter, what matters is the NSA.
The rapid development of technology involved in our lives are making these info even more easily obtainable by the NSA. what it can do now is only a small proportional of what it can do in the not too far distance.
And what can we do about it? Nothing, exposing NSA will only slow it down. Government can easily change its name, make backdoor deals with companies and run it all over again and this time, we might never ever hear about this program.
imo, he might have exposed too many documents to other countries, it might be a safety net for him to "bride" his way into a foreign land and live his life, or it might be him making deals before he even ran off with the documents.
But we should not place any less attention onto these spy activities, especially on its own people. I thought the great wall of China was bad. but NSA bad? What if China has this level of technology and spying on its own people. and we know it will happen because technology will get figured out, adopted and improved.
I worry for our society future and what it means to live in such country.
To me I am under the opinion China is currently spying at a much greater level then the US and that it's just common knowledge. It would almost be naive to think that China is spying any less then the US. Our computer systems are hacked into on a daily bases from Chinese hackers. Obviously I'm biased from what history classes has taught me about the cold war. But seeing the extent that North Korea goes to, to keep tabs on every citizen the US and China could be no better, but are just less obvious.
Why should China be the level at which the line is drawn?
You're implying that it doesn't matter what the US does as long as China is worse. China is one of the worst countries, its sounds like to you its ok for the US to be the second worst country in terms of privacy and freedom in the world.
If you compare the US to all other first world countries, the US almost looks like China compared to them.
Is China really a standard we should be comparing to when looking at this issue?
I wouldn't call China one of the worst countries. Hell, when was the last time they invaded a country on a different continent for oil?
That statement was made in context of how countries treat their own citizens.
Besides, just because geopolitical circumstances allow one entity to do things that the other can't, doesn't mean the other wouldn't do the same (or worse) in their place or if given a realistic opportunity to do so.
Since when are hypothetical situations an argument? It's what countires do that matters. Even if China wanted to act the way the US does (and that is a stretch, the US is an extremely warmongering country by any measure), that doesn't make it even remotely comparable to the US in that regard, because the US actually does that while China only wishes to...
EPT
you haunt me even after your terms are up...
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/204c21cc52b7386a825bd07dc6ee7577.png)
