|
On July 18 2013 09:40 Basic Basic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote:
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care . "They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act. I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried. As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
No, please go on. You've already derailed this discussion by proposing this argument. Thanks for sharing your own opinion and in the same breath preemptively condemning anyone who'd retort for being off-topic. Why not just say it straight up? Did you just suggest the fourth amendment is outdated? Or that the entire constitution is outdated therefore spying and logging billions of records on private citizens is okay?
|
On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 22:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 19:02 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 13:45 cLAN.Anax wrote:He deserves a prison cell. Snowden signed up knowing he'd have to keep silent about the sensitive secrets he would be entrusted with. How is this not treasonous sabotage? He deserves punishment, not recognition. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009. Bahahaha. The Nobel Prize reputation would only plummet farther. soo if someone in noth korea joins the military forces, makes it to the very top and gets confronted with plans to nuke the US (don't complain about logic pls it just an example) and he decides: "no I got to stop this" and somehow manages to get the information about the plans out into the world he should, following your logic, be sent to prison in any country he tries to escape to? I mean it was an act of treason and surely he shouldn't be rewarded for it ,right? You got to put yourself in a neutral perspective here. I mean the US spied on their ALLIES how is that justifiable at all? and then their biggest worry is to go after the man who has revealed this fact instead of apologizing or something.... how would you feel in that situation? There are two faults here: the first of which is the government "spying" on its people and that of its allies; the second is Snowden knowingly breaking his promise to keep quiet on the secrets he was entrusted with. Regardless of what the government is doing wrong (won't deny that), Snowden sinned too. It appears too much like he planned on sabotage from the get-go. Surely there's a better way to do this than leaking the information, going public for recognition, then hiding behind other countries attempting to barter with the U.S. by releasing others' information, fight sin with sin so to speak. "sin"? first of all if you wanna use this word don't do it like this cause there is so much room for argument on what it means... 2nd. so what is your point with the people and the allies? 3rd. even if he had the intention to shed some lights on the unethical/illegal stuff the nsa is doing I don't see how that makes his motive of drawing attention to those things any worse... I mean the thing is if he had the intetion to uncover it then he must have known there was something to uncover right? 4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... I don't know about you but if there is a way for me to survive while achieving my goal I would go for that too. so he didn't do it as cleanly as it could have been but there was simply no other way for him to get the information out there - knowing about it and NOT telling anyone, espically the people whose rights were violated, would have been the greater "sin"
I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across.
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
|
On July 18 2013 09:26 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 08:58 tokinho wrote:On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote:
I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to?
Some people talked about Germany and WW2.
Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on.
And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet?
Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible.
This makes the secret spying even more absurd.
And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped. Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped. Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility. We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you. I think you missed a couple of lessons in your history class. As for the bolded: Are you really trying to say that it is either spying or genocide? I think you might want to reconsider that.
Nope I'm not saying that its spying or genocide. Its like asking which one is the worse, in which i state -"they are just as bad, but in a different way."
|
Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next.
Actually no.
Why woul anybody in Germany or Europe as a whole want a war with the USA?
But a good way to try to get the situation to move from "friend" to "enemy" could be spying on the other country 
|
On July 18 2013 09:40 Basic Basic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote:
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care . "They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act. I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried. As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though.
NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
|
On July 18 2013 10:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 09:40 Basic Basic wrote:On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote:
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care . "They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act. I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried. As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though. NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio. I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any.
I certainly see your point.
However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
|
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens.Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Even the guy that nominated Snowden admits his distaste for obama. Maybe the council that selects people should do a better job of selecting worthy people than to use the award to get back at people they regret nominating.
|
On July 18 2013 09:34 Ai.Cola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 08:58 tokinho wrote:On July 18 2013 08:48 Ai.Cola wrote:
I find it alarming that some people here keep defeinding the spying, I mean we are talking about private E-mails, SKYPE CALLS, facebook chat, and so on.
What does this have to do with keeping track on what other nations are up to?
Some people talked about Germany and WW2.
Nobody would be so upset if we were talking about spying on military numbers, industrial production, and so on.
And by the way, in the age of cellphones, internet, and so on, who needs spys to figure out that a nation is preparing for war with it's neighbours?
In any country it is highly illegal to spy on people's homes and letters, so why would we tolerate spying in our personal messages that we send online, or our personal calls we make via the internet?
Those things are exactly the same, only the technoligy/medium used to transfer the information is a different one.
PS: to be fair I should point out that as far as I know every E-mail in Germany, and probably in other countries too, is officially scanned for keywords and if it turns out to be very alarming it is checked by the police or whoever is responsible.
This makes the secret spying even more absurd.
And yes, I also think this should be illegal and stopped. Ai.Cola, I agree that it is completely illegal and hope it will be stopped. Just to point out some cultural differences, I guess that we didn't go through occupation by another country nor genocide. So the US is still struggling to grasp that. We didn't have to meet at church to hide information from an occupier, we didn't have a wall dividing our people. We don't have near as much censorship in the US.(GoGo mods, who censor the ascii genitals) We let anyone say stupid things, and just give people arbitrary varying amounts of credibility. We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I have family that was in East Germany and I feel the same way as you. Kind of don't know what you mean, but here are some facts to enlighten you. 1. the USA are built upon the genocide of the Native American population 2. Ever heared of slavery? 3. the USA also started out as the colony of another Nation, sounds pretty much like occupation to me 4. You didn't have a wall, but a straight on civil war, north vs east 5. "not near as much censorship" !? Where exactly is the terrible censorship in Germany? At least you can say "fuck" out loud here and say any word you want in a song. The censorship is pretty even when it comes to more or less "normal" people. Show nested quote +We still have a young country that believes that negotiating and spying is better than genocide, even though they are just as bad but in a different way. I don't get this at all, what does it have to do with the topic? However, the USA were based on the idea of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, and so on, because at the time those ideas were not yet established in europe. So it is very sad to see that the USA (AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ASWELL) start to take those rights away from us again, under the ridiculous excuse of terrorism ...
Nice facts, which means that obviously I'm being unclear. The spying the by the US isn't as bad as it was with the Stasi((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130710/eu-germany-nsa-surveillance/?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=world), but the potential is there to be. (hence why germans and Russians in general might support snowdens cause, yet why people in the US would feel different)
My bad is that I'm not trying to talk about the events. The post is about spying, I'm I'm trying to provide evidence for why spying on a non-offending population leads to bad events such as genocide. My facts are discussing spying on the non-offending population, particularly from the Stasi and the results of that. For example, spying was related to genocide, occupation related to spying. The divide in our country if the south wins means that we have 2 countries with different sets of rights, the country never did actually end in having two countries. The US did not have a policy of spying on its own people not targeted by the government until recently. As far as censorship in Germany, I'm talking about political discussions stopped by the stasi.
I was trying to emphasize that until now, the US is unaware of the bad things that come from spying. I have family in Schwedt who told me a little about the stasi and what it was like, not that the US has the cleanest history, but that we haven't established inside the US, the negative effects of spying on our own population, yet, and thus i think that eventually most people will agree with you as it continues to be more prominent.
|
On July 18 2013 10:10 Basic Basic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:04 Talin wrote:On July 18 2013 09:40 Basic Basic wrote:On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote:
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care . "They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act. I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried. As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though. NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio. I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any. I certainly see your point. However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
So as long as they don't abuse their powers you are okay with it? Do you see the slippery slide here? And why people object to even stepping out on it by collecting the data?
|
On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote:
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people.
The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace.
|
On July 18 2013 10:32 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote:
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people. The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents. The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved.
Nailed it on the head man.
Snowden didnt make people angry, he just gave us a massive dose of truth that the global media was unable to dilute in order to avoid the outrage.
The US has been outraging the world for the past decade, snowden just put it in evidence.
|
More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents.
I'd argue that this discredits the prize more than Obama getting it does, but I agree with your second paragraph anyhow.
|
On July 18 2013 10:32 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote:
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people. The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents. The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved. I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace.
I disagree because of this. Chew on that for a bit. I'll read your reply when I get back later tonight. 
|
On July 18 2013 09:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 22:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 19:02 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 13:45 cLAN.Anax wrote:He deserves a prison cell. Snowden signed up knowing he'd have to keep silent about the sensitive secrets he would be entrusted with. How is this not treasonous sabotage? He deserves punishment, not recognition. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009. Bahahaha. The Nobel Prize reputation would only plummet farther. soo if someone in noth korea joins the military forces, makes it to the very top and gets confronted with plans to nuke the US (don't complain about logic pls it just an example) and he decides: "no I got to stop this" and somehow manages to get the information about the plans out into the world he should, following your logic, be sent to prison in any country he tries to escape to? I mean it was an act of treason and surely he shouldn't be rewarded for it ,right? You got to put yourself in a neutral perspective here. I mean the US spied on their ALLIES how is that justifiable at all? and then their biggest worry is to go after the man who has revealed this fact instead of apologizing or something.... how would you feel in that situation? There are two faults here: the first of which is the government "spying" on its people and that of its allies; the second is Snowden knowingly breaking his promise to keep quiet on the secrets he was entrusted with. Regardless of what the government is doing wrong (won't deny that), Snowden sinned too. It appears too much like he planned on sabotage from the get-go. Surely there's a better way to do this than leaking the information, going public for recognition, then hiding behind other countries attempting to barter with the U.S. by releasing others' information, fight sin with sin so to speak. "sin"? first of all if you wanna use this word don't do it like this cause there is so much room for argument on what it means... 2nd. so what is your point with the people and the allies? 3rd. even if he had the intention to shed some lights on the unethical/illegal stuff the nsa is doing I don't see how that makes his motive of drawing attention to those things any worse... I mean the thing is if he had the intetion to uncover it then he must have known there was something to uncover right? 4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... I don't know about you but if there is a way for me to survive while achieving my goal I would go for that too. so he didn't do it as cleanly as it could have been but there was simply no other way for him to get the information out there - knowing about it and NOT telling anyone, espically the people whose rights were violated, would have been the greater "sin" I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across. Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next. People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption.
Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament.
Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught.
Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need.
Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information.
|
On July 18 2013 10:45 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:32 Talin wrote:On July 18 2013 10:16 Baarn wrote:
No I don't think he deserves it for bringing awareness of governments spying on its citizens. The only reason he got nominated at all was to make a point to obama that europe isn't happy with him after hearing about the depth of spying. Snowden's act didn't create peace between nations. It angered people. The Peace prize represents(/ed) ideals greater in scope than people not being angry and killing each other. More than one person on the Peace prize list has actively waged wars or otherwise caused deaths of innocents. The anger that Snowden's leaks created isn't anger bred out of hatred or ideological differences. It is a civil anger towards an government that has committed unwarranted hostile actions towards its own people and the rest of the civilized world. The leaks did no damage, but rather exposed the damage that has been perpetrated by others, thus laying an important foundation for these issues to be properly confronted and hopefully resolved. I would say that a foreign government infringing on my people's individual privacy and treating their countries and/or European Union as one would treat a threat or a potential enemy is hardly a statement of peace. I disagree because of this. Chew on that for a bit. I'll read your reply when I get back later tonight.
I'm not sure how that article can be the grounds for disagreeing with me.
Of course it should have a severe impact on US-EU relations. That should be a part of confronting the issue and acknowledging its implications. It's probably not going to, though, but that's a different matter entirely. Either way, Snowden didn't personally cause the damage to US-EU relations, at least not by leaking information. He did not "make people angry", US government made people angry.
|
On July 18 2013 10:10 Basic Basic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:04 Talin wrote:On July 18 2013 09:40 Basic Basic wrote:On July 18 2013 09:28 quebecman77 wrote:
For example someone knows the police did something really wrong , with this system he can never talk , no one will know .
they could control everything... and SERIOUSLY ,
It's a blatant breach of the fourth amendment. A right US citizens are guaranteed at birth -- that their privacy won't be violated to "fish" for crimes without probable cause. This isn't just about random phone calls to a mother. The audacity you have to flaunt your ignorance by suggesting any American who defends their right is a terrorist.
if people want to fight again big corporation , they can supress them easy , no one would dare do that in 2052
then we get 1984 , maybe you dont care that they know you have called your mom today but in 15 year when you see for exemple someone realy rich do a murder and because of this system you just disappear , you will care . "They" already do control everything, in case you didn't notice. The government has been spying since the Patriot Act. I understand that there's a scare of the Orwellian Nightmare, but honestly...I just don't see that happening with the U.S. government. I do believe that the NSA is only doing this to help the populace, not harm us. You may say I'm just a brainwashed idiot, but it seems like people are making too big of a fuss. I don't see the harm in letting some pasty faced government official look over all my posts, emails, conversations, and pictures. They're not going to use the information they gather unless it looks like a serious threat to national security. If the NSA begins to use the info they gather to really start oppressing the populace, then I'd get worried. As for the fourth amendment... I honestly think our Constitution is outdated for the most part anyway. That's going off-topic, though. NSA isn't doing anything to help the populace nobody ever does anything to help the populace. Everything that they do, they do to justify their existence and stay relevant so that they get to keep their jobs. If they do that by protecting the public interest, then that is what they will do. If they do that by protecting other kinds of interests, then that's what they will do. If they do that by creating threats where little or none exist, then providing the tools to deal with those threats, then that is what they will do. I'd venture a guess that they're doing all these things in some undetermined ratio. I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that this rather expensive pet project actually makes them feel safer from terrorist attacks. It's a good plot for a TV show, but Prism isn't going to save many lives or prevent many bombs from going off. If any. I certainly see your point. However, I feel that in today's world...any precaution is a good one. I can honestly say I've never felt the effects of any of the programs, and I don't know anyone that has, either. As long as they aren't selling the data they get or using it to oppress- then I'm OK with their monitoring the populace's communications.
So any precaution against the possibility of terrorism is okay, but precaution against possible abuse of power (Which has happened before... a lot... Power corrupts, after all, and this is getting close to absolute power) is negligible because of the modicum of safety that power may or may not provide? Seems sound.
|
It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
|
On July 18 2013 10:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 09:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 22:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 19:02 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 13:45 cLAN.Anax wrote:He deserves a prison cell. Snowden signed up knowing he'd have to keep silent about the sensitive secrets he would be entrusted with. How is this not treasonous sabotage? He deserves punishment, not recognition. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009. Bahahaha. The Nobel Prize reputation would only plummet farther. soo if someone in noth korea joins the military forces, makes it to the very top and gets confronted with plans to nuke the US (don't complain about logic pls it just an example) and he decides: "no I got to stop this" and somehow manages to get the information about the plans out into the world he should, following your logic, be sent to prison in any country he tries to escape to? I mean it was an act of treason and surely he shouldn't be rewarded for it ,right? You got to put yourself in a neutral perspective here. I mean the US spied on their ALLIES how is that justifiable at all? and then their biggest worry is to go after the man who has revealed this fact instead of apologizing or something.... how would you feel in that situation? There are two faults here: the first of which is the government "spying" on its people and that of its allies; the second is Snowden knowingly breaking his promise to keep quiet on the secrets he was entrusted with. Regardless of what the government is doing wrong (won't deny that), Snowden sinned too. It appears too much like he planned on sabotage from the get-go. Surely there's a better way to do this than leaking the information, going public for recognition, then hiding behind other countries attempting to barter with the U.S. by releasing others' information, fight sin with sin so to speak. "sin"? first of all if you wanna use this word don't do it like this cause there is so much room for argument on what it means... 2nd. so what is your point with the people and the allies? 3rd. even if he had the intention to shed some lights on the unethical/illegal stuff the nsa is doing I don't see how that makes his motive of drawing attention to those things any worse... I mean the thing is if he had the intetion to uncover it then he must have known there was something to uncover right? 4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... I don't know about you but if there is a way for me to survive while achieving my goal I would go for that too. so he didn't do it as cleanly as it could have been but there was simply no other way for him to get the information out there - knowing about it and NOT telling anyone, espically the people whose rights were violated, would have been the greater "sin" I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across. Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next. People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption. Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament. Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught. Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need.
He didn't have to, but he couldn't have won so much fame and fortune if he didn't announce it to the public. He sacrificed his anonymity for public glory and foreign allies; now he's seeking asylum to avoid legal backlash.
Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information.
I've never said or implied that. (edit: I saw how you intended to say that immediately after I posted; hwoops) And if your second/third phrase is correct, why couldn't it be in the form of someone on "the inside" like Snowden?
|
On July 18 2013 12:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 18 2013 09:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 22:24 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 22:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 17 2013 19:02 sVnteen wrote:On July 17 2013 13:45 cLAN.Anax wrote:He deserves a prison cell. Snowden signed up knowing he'd have to keep silent about the sensitive secrets he would be entrusted with. How is this not treasonous sabotage? He deserves punishment, not recognition. Svallfors also believes this will help the Peace Prize regain some of respect it lost after prematurely awarding Barack Obama the award in 2009. Bahahaha. The Nobel Prize reputation would only plummet farther. soo if someone in noth korea joins the military forces, makes it to the very top and gets confronted with plans to nuke the US (don't complain about logic pls it just an example) and he decides: "no I got to stop this" and somehow manages to get the information about the plans out into the world he should, following your logic, be sent to prison in any country he tries to escape to? I mean it was an act of treason and surely he shouldn't be rewarded for it ,right? You got to put yourself in a neutral perspective here. I mean the US spied on their ALLIES how is that justifiable at all? and then their biggest worry is to go after the man who has revealed this fact instead of apologizing or something.... how would you feel in that situation? There are two faults here: the first of which is the government "spying" on its people and that of its allies; the second is Snowden knowingly breaking his promise to keep quiet on the secrets he was entrusted with. Regardless of what the government is doing wrong (won't deny that), Snowden sinned too. It appears too much like he planned on sabotage from the get-go. Surely there's a better way to do this than leaking the information, going public for recognition, then hiding behind other countries attempting to barter with the U.S. by releasing others' information, fight sin with sin so to speak. "sin"? first of all if you wanna use this word don't do it like this cause there is so much room for argument on what it means... 2nd. so what is your point with the people and the allies? 3rd. even if he had the intention to shed some lights on the unethical/illegal stuff the nsa is doing I don't see how that makes his motive of drawing attention to those things any worse... I mean the thing is if he had the intetion to uncover it then he must have known there was something to uncover right? 4th. you criticizing him for HOW he released the information is ridiculous since he would be dead right now if he had done it any differently... I don't know about you but if there is a way for me to survive while achieving my goal I would go for that too. so he didn't do it as cleanly as it could have been but there was simply no other way for him to get the information out there - knowing about it and NOT telling anyone, espically the people whose rights were violated, would have been the greater "sin" I merely meant that I believe Snowden did wrong. "Sinning" was just an adequate synonym to get that point across. Why wouldn't a country spy on purported "allies?" It's militarily sound, if not morally. A country friendly to another one day may be a mortal enemy the next. People are treating him like a vigilante, when all he appears to me is just a traitor. I would bet he was lured by other countries to share the secrets for the fame he's receiving now, and any money he could be/was offered. We're assuming that Snowden has honest, wholesome intentions by uncovering these secrets. I'm very skeptical towards that assumption. Snowden didn't have to make this information public. If he were doing this purely for his own gain, he wouldn't have and he wouldn't be in this predicament. Given the fact that Snowden was able to do this so easily, there has probably been quite a few people in the past that did what Snowden did without releasing information to the public, these people would never be known or caught. Snowden's actions just goes to show that the NSA is actually creating the opposite effect of what we want. The NSA is just one big treasure trove for espionage, we have done all the terrorists work for them by funnelling and sorting all important data into the one place. Terrorists no longer have to look anywhere else, they just need one person in the NSA and they have all the information they need. He didn't have to, but he couldn't have won so much fame and fortune if he didn't announce it to the public. He sacrificed his anonymity for public glory and foreign allies; now he's seeking asylum to avoid legal backlash. Show nested quote +Also don't assume all terrorists are burka wearing middle-eastern people or carry bombs, a terrorist can come from within the USA looking for massive financial gain, or from China looking to cause mass disruption in the USA in the fight to become the #1 global superpower. I'm sure many CEOs would sell their souls to get this kind of information. I've never said or implied that. (edit: I saw how you intended to say that immediately after I posted; hwoops) And if your second/third phrase is correct, why couldn't it be in the form of someone on "the inside" like Snowden?
Yes and thanks, the second half was not a rebuttal, just more of a voice of awareness.
I think the NSA evidence wouldn't have any credibility without someone like Snowden to be shown to be behind it, however there's no denying that Snowden probably wanted his name to be etched in history as well.
It would be in the form of someone on the inside like Snowden, however Snowden himself would not and could not be useful to a terrorist. Why? Because he is no longer on the inside. A one time dump of data does not help in an attack, it is the constant up to date feed of data that is most useful. If I were to launch an attack, I would want to know all the details leading right up to the attack, especially whether the NSA is aware of it or not, and whether they had a counter-strategy in place.
Preparing a strategy on month old data just leads to failure, like the phony terrorist attacks that the police setup in order to catch wannabe jihadists in the act. A constant stream would enable terrorists to throw in red herrings or immediately bypass any counter measures that end up being devised and make the NSA completely useless to the US while being amazingly useful for terrorists. This information is not that useful to the people who would use it for terrorism, however someone on the inside, and would remain on the inside, would be extremely useful.
|
On July 18 2013 11:19 kmillz wrote:
It's interesting to me that so many people here seem to be ok with all of this spying..could anyone give me some examples of what good it has done for us that we know about so far?
Supposedly the spying the NSA did on Americans has thwarted terrorist attacks, though I haven't heard concrete evidence of this myself yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
