|
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
Does he deserve the Nobel peace prize, I don't know. Does he deserve to be locked up in a 6*10 cell because he had the guts to expose the fact that a security agency has once again crossed a boarder, killed the village on the other side and acted like it's perfectly natural, definitely no.
They want to make an example out of him so this never happens, but if reports like these don't surface from time to time what's there to keep them from committing even worse atrocities. What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
|
The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well.
What's the problem with that?
They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
committing even worse atrocities.
I don't think atrocity means what you think it means...
What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror?
That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
|
On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... Show nested quote +What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US.
Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
|
On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... Show nested quote +What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that.
Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
|
Espionage is not the exception, it is the rule.
|
On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight.
The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
|
On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations..
Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
|
On July 18 2013 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations.. Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
|
On July 18 2013 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations.. Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason.
they didn't trust germany they were just afraid to interfere
|
The problem is US corporations cooperating with US government, and we need to "crack" open those corps so they can't have a blanket surveillance warrant if the target is non-US. Germany was spied upon as much as "enemies" of US, and that should make you angry.
Facebook etc. should be forced to split their businesses so the US does not have 100% control of all their data.
|
On July 18 2013 06:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight. The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor?
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court.
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
|
On July 18 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight. The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor? I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court. I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech?
|
On July 18 2013 06:09 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations.. Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason. they didn't trust germany they were just afraid to interfere
There are a lot of historians that would argue that Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler, despite what he was being informed by others. Total trust is not responsable when you are in charge of protecting millions.
|
On July 18 2013 06:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations.. Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason. so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
No, I am saying be pragmatic on the subject. I woudl never fault Germany for spying on the US. I expect it, Angela Merkel is in charge of protecting a lot of people in that nation.
|
As someone I am guessing has probably said, he deserves it more than obama.
|
On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo...
Because it demonstrates disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations, which is bizarre considering the entire existence (i.e. the Revolutionary mentality) of the United States is based on an understanding of sovereignty as being something connected to the people and not the business of foreign powers or monarchs.
I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger.
Who did he put in danger, how did he put them in danger, and have any of the people in danger actually been harmed in any way? If so, how, when, and was it connected to Snowden or just incidental?
I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
Microsoft isn't the government, first off. That means that, while people can basically just stop using Microsoft's products, file lawsuits, and otherwise demonize them in the public sphere/flock to their competitors, people can't do that with the NSA. The NSA has already been sued by groups like the ACLU, only to be met with the State Secrets privilege, so the prospects of rectifying things using the legal apparatus doesn't seem promising. Second, why should I have to assume that any communication I make using the internet is somehow open to the government's knowledge? It's not going to "go public," and that's the problem. It's not that everyone is allowed to check up on people's phone/internet records, because that's illegal, but that, for some reason, the government is not subject to the same rules. Obviously, there are some things the government is allowed to do that regular citizens shouldn't be allowed to do, but I don't think blanket surveillance of the communications of private citizens conducting private business is really something that needs to exist.
It's another one of those "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid" responses. Well, um, I'm not afraid. I don't think anyone is really fearing that they're going to be arrested or something, but instead I think people feel rather uncomfortable with the idea that their primary means of private communication is no longer private. That's kinda creepy, if you ask me. Even if you never do anything that gets your file looked up, or your data pulled, or anything, it's still weird to know that somewhere, out there, someone has the ability to call up (not denying that there are protocols in place, but that's not the point) all of the metadata pertaining to you. To me, that's weird, because even I can't call up my own metadata, and I'm me.
|
On July 18 2013 06:18 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 06:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight. The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor? I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court. I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it. How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech?
I didn't say that. I said people should expect that at some level the goverment is going to interact with the internet and collect information that is traveling through the ether. Emails and the other information traveling isn't like a letter. If can be altered and changed after it is sent. It isn't physical. I don't think they shoudl have unlimited access, but there needs to be a way for the goverment to get information without gaving to go through 15 steps just to find out where a single email went.
And finally, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are free to talk about this all you want. It is about privacy, which is a right that has not bee fully fleshed out on the internet and we are going to need to deal with that.
|
On July 18 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight. The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor? I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court. I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it.
Then we're back to the great firewall of China. Basically the people of any nation are not safe from foreign invasion by large corporations. So EU will have to set up own service and their own internet and their own credit card companies to avoid this or they have to trust that America has everyone's interest in mind, and basically that trust is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. America never has anyone's interest in mind save their own, so anything business ever will never go our way as EU is practically the backyard of US companies.
EU is taking it up the arse, patents first and novelty business second with every advantage lost due to American wiretaps. Meanwhile they sell us crappy subprime mortages and cause economic crisis after economic crisis. I think Snowden deserves a shot at the nobel price. He aspires to greater ideals than most nations will ever care for.
it is often said that Lies make the world go round, but i disagree. The public of any nation needs to be informed, so they can make informed choices and in order for their politicians can be held accountable there needs to be someone revealing the information first.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 18 2013 06:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:04 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:52 kmillz wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. Please elaborate on why it would be a dereliction of duty to not spy on our allied nations.. Because if you trust your allies to do what they say, you end up in really bad places when they don't. There are a lot of good examples of this in WW2 when nations just trusted Germany to stop it's forward progress. Trust is good, within reason. so you want to compare the germany of today with the germany of 1933? Or Angela Merkel with Adolf Hitler?
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
|
On July 18 2013 06:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 06:18 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 18 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 06:01 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 18 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2013 05:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:The problems is that the US was not only spying on it's enemies, it was spying on it's allies as well. What's the problem with that? They aren't a part of the United States, they are foreign independent countries no matter how closely allied to the United States. Not spying on them would be a dereliction of duty imo... committing even worse atrocities. I don't think atrocity means what you think it means... What's next, organizing a few terrorist attacks on their allies so they'll support the war on terror? That seems... oh hell it's just stupid to say something like that. I am with this guy, "atrocities" is not the word you are looking for. Also, spying on our allies is a good practice. Keeps us all honest. I fully expect England, France and everyone else to spy on the US. Also, I think you might want check to see if your tinfoil hat is on to tight. The defender plansix to the rescue! What is your opinion on all this anyways. Do you think what the NSA has been doing is legal/moral, and do you think Snowden is an american hero or traitor? I think he is a criminal who broke the law and put some people in the intelligence community in danger. I don’t think he is the devil or evil, but I don’t like hearing that intelligence is released because my brother in over seas. I do think people should know more about the data that is being requested and the process that used to oversee the requests, but at the end of the day, the internet is something government has to deal with. I don’t really care if Snowden is tried or ever caught, but if he is, he should be tried in open court. I am pragmatic on the subject. I think people should assume that anything they put on the internet could go public, as they are giving up control over it(even if a company claims they will guard their privacy). The internet is not a place were we should feel as protected as we do in our homes, since that is not the case. Finally, I think people fearing the NSA snooping their skype calls isn't a non-issue, it was likely Microsoft was already doing it. How did i know you would hold an opinion like that. So just let our government/major corporations invade every single aspect of our lives all the while shitting all over freedom of speech? I didn't say that. I said people should expect that at some level the goverment is going to interact with the internet and collect information that is traveling through the ether. Emails and the other information traveling isn't like a letter. If can be altered and changed after it is sent. It isn't physical. I don't think they shoudl have unlimited access, but there needs to be a way for the goverment to get information without gaving to go through 15 steps just to find out where a single email went.
The government can and does open letters. Moreover, it is perfectly possible (and actually trivially easy) to intercept a letter and alter it, whereas an e-mail travels near-instantly and can't really be changed on the fly unless you're waiting for it and/or have a shitload of access to the relevant mail servers.
Why does the government need to be able to get any and all information conveniently? Why is this need more important than the pretty reasonable desire of human beings to not have a giant organization having the ability to know anything they deem pertinent?
Nobody has established what the actual function of these surveillance programs is in any real terms. Supposedly it has something to do with terrorism, but I haven't exactly seen it do anything monumental, so what's the justification?
And finally, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are free to talk about this all you want. It is about privacy, which is a right that has not bee fully fleshed out on the internet and we are going to need to deal with that.
Right to privacy is like proving a negative. The default position is that a given thing a person does is private unless there is a good reason for it not to be. Sometimes, this is obvious: a public park is not private because it doesn't belong to any individual in particular, and because it's designated as being accessible to everyone, so when you walk there, you don't have the right to not have people see you. But when you're in your own house using a telephone or sending an e-mail, there needs to be a pretty damn good reason as to why this shouldn't be considered a private activity.
Germany did it twice in the past 100 years. I think suspicion is justified.
I really hope you're joking. World War I was basically a bunch of arrogant nationalists on both sides. It wasn't like Britain were saints bringing justice and Germany was trying to enslave everyone, or something. But guess what? Right after WWI, the Germans were made to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which basically fucked them over to the point of no return*. The United States didn't even ratify the treaty, because they couldn't agree on it, and because the populace hated it since it was perceived as being ridiculously unfair.
I mean it's like having a fight with someone, winning, and then burning down his house and requiring him to eat nothing but sardines for a few decades. Are you gonna be surprised if that guy's children hate you? A large part of Germany's vulnerability to fascist takeover was that Germany fucking sucked at the time, and the Nazis played on that go obtain more popular support. Stable, prosperous countries tend not to experience coups. basically.
*Yes, I'm aware that modern assessments of the Versailles treaty consider it manageable for the Germans, but that doesn't change the narrative of what happened. Germany was made to basically bear the "fault" for the war in the sense of accordance of blame, and the general public absolutely fucking hated the Treaty for that. That's what the Nazis worked with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
