[quote]drunkpig wrote:
This whistle blower is every bit the patriot, if not more so, than 98.997% of the military. No offense to the fine folks in uniform, but this guy is risking almost certain death just for standing up and saying, " Hey this shit just ain’t right".
[/quote]
I’m glad this guy came out, but give me a break. Fine folks in uniform are actually risking their life, you know, by being shot at. This guy is/will be a house hold name in a matter of weeks. What exactly do you think is going to happen to him?
He’ll probably write a book and get rich as fuck off this whole mess, yeah certain death…[/quote]
I meant no insult to our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen. It was a woodford-induced rant that came out sounding much different than it did in my head.
My point was that this guy did something that took tons of balls - and if you listen to him, he seems very sincere about his motives for doing what he did.
I think his actions, while most likely illegal, are extremely patriotic in that he did what he did out of love of country - not love of government. [/quote]
I agree with you. It took balls and intelligence to come out with it the way he did. Had he come out a different way, he may well have been, ‘disappeared.’
There is another thing with the intelligence agencies… Are there any orders for them to follow like we have in the military? Like, to only follow lawful orders? The one guy over there that seems to embody what we want to be American Integrity legitimately had his life in danger, and we all really know it’s true, and as serious as a heart attack.
Is there an, ‘anymouse’ or any sort of oversight within the intelligence agencies that specifically look out for the pubic interest? Also, if we know that every other country, to include China are doing the exact same activities we are, why not have the integrity to just put it out in the open for EVERYONE in the world to see?
I’m not saying it would be grounds for us to continue spying, but at least we would know who’s holding what cards…
[/quote]
Actually, if Snowden thought something illegal was happening he’d legal means of voicing his concern. I believe he would have had to go through congress about it. It’d have became national news without having to worry about so many consequences. However, Snowden also leaked sensitive information and that’s inexcusable. Telling the world America’s plans on what to do about cyber threats would be about like telling the world what the CIA is going to do about foreign threats. That’s a huge violation of OPSEC.
Personally, I don’t agree with storing an individuals information without any cause to do so. That’s a slippery slope. If someones records have no real points of concern they should be deleted from the database.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
This whistle blower is every bit the patriot, if not more so, than 98.997% of the military. No offense to the fine folks in uniform, but this guy is risking almost certain death just for standing up and saying, " Hey this shit just ain’t right".
[/quote]
I’m glad this guy came out, but give me a break. Fine folks in uniform are actually risking their life, you know, by being shot at. This guy is/will be a house hold name in a matter of weeks. What exactly do you think is going to happen to him?
He’ll probably write a book and get rich as fuck off this whole mess, yeah certain death…[/quote]
You don’t think his life is in danger?
I do give him credit for being smart. Now that he’s exposed, it’s going to be a lot harder to whack him. If nobody knew who he was, a well placed sniper bullet would take care of the issue…
[/quote]
Right now, he is (or was) in Hong Kong, the front door to China. Any inkling that he’s talking to the Chinese will get him an immediate one-way pass to Supermax, period. He would have been far better off going on the lam to Rio or Australia.
His life itself is not in danger, but his freedom sure is.
[quote]Rednose wrote:
“A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama’s promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor.”
Wonder if we can get a thoughtful discussion going on here. I’ll try. The major reason that he got up in arms is that the Fed made one of the most momentous legal decisions in history all on their own: They declared that while the Constitution prevents them from eavesdropping directly on the data, they own your metadata.
Metadata is all the information about information. When you send a text message from your phone, for instance, all the routing information, time, date, length, location (GPS anyone?) is part of the metadata, plus anything else about the message anyone can think of (if you send an attached picture, is that metadata??) The push from everywhere is to get as much of this as possible. You want it – it’s how Amazon customizes your wishlist or why Google maps seems to be so helpful. From the perspective of people like me who work with modelling expert systems, content is completely secondary to metadata. When I saw what the Fed had done, I did a double-take because of the gravity of the situation. Statements only have meaning in context, so they really did repeal the Constitution when nobody was looking, though I don’t think they understand the depth that this decision has. They will figure it out and our lives will be potentially much worse off for it.*
What’s more, the Fed effectively announced it owns all metadata, including that in foreign countries. At least a couple of European countries have already filed lawsuits to stop this but apparently they got caught by surprise.
I can see why Snowden did this and because he has run afoul of Federal Law (which requires no criminal intent of any sort for conviction, even on treason which is punishable by death), he did just risk his life to do this and he knew it. I can see why he was terrified of the consequences in what was a bureaucratic decision which actually should have been a very hotly contested public debate.
As always, just being full of shit…
– jj
For instance, Federal laws kick into play when things cross state boundaries. There are already laws on the books where texting is a Federal crime if the message goes to an out of state server, even if you are texting your next door neighbor. (The intent was to try and grab drug dealers on Federal charges, so that setting up a deal was punishable even if it fell through.) How would you like to type a wrong number and have the FBI haul you off as a suspected terrorist? If it is a Federal offense – and since the content is irrelevant – you are now guilty. No criminal or other intent is necessary for conviction. See where this is going? The Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure does not apply to your metadata.
PS. The way the Fed got companies to comply was to grant them immunity from prosecution if they did so voluntarily. Notice that the laws to prosecute this as offenses weren’t actually in place yet. This is another strike against them because of the obvious threatening and strong arm tactics they are using already before there is even a legal framework. [/quote]
This is why you are in my top three of all time favorite posters. Wicked smart. Never read one of your posts that I did not learn something. [/quote]
To put an edge on jj-dude’s observation, there is a Constitutional justification for the NSA mess:
"Thirty-five years ago in United States v. Choate, the courts ruled that the Postal Service may record �?�¢??mail cover,�?�¢?? i.e., what�?�¢??s written on the outside of an envelope �?�¢?? the addresses of sender and receiver.
The National Security Agency�?�¢??s recording of U.S. phone data does basically that with the telephone. It records who is calling whom �?�¢?? the outside of the envelope, as it were. The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope. It may not be opened without a court order."
I don’t happen to agree with either the premise or the precedent. Electronic transmissions are different; there is the reasonable expectation of privacy, and the metadata give information on network associations, whereas these are not true of posted letters’ envelopes. This is a violation of privacy and freedom of association and arguably a violation of the First Amendment. Where the Fourth Amendment is violated is the creep of spying from FISA courts (where it is argued that spying on foreign transmissions is legal) to domestic spying.
As for foreign countries–particularly Europeans–the outrage is faked. They–including Angela Merkel–are knee-deep in this, and are only playing “shocked, shocked,” because they were blind-sided by the Guardian articles.
I notice 2 things about Snowden. First, the Guardian has not published any substance in the disclosures; i.e., no agents have been outed, the specific use of the metadata is left unrevealed. The Guardian has simply revealed the existence of Prism and its sources. Second, if all this metadata were important and useful, would not the NSA, or Booz-Allen-Hamilton, have found out about Snowden before he spilled guts to the Guardian? And if they didn’t find him, then of what value is all this spying anyway?
[/quote]
Would you agree that the US Government is getting the information from Private Companies. Even thought the US Postal Service is a private company by definition, but it gets special treatment like a government entity. Kind of like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is the US Postal Service a GSE? So the legal precedence does not apply to Private Companies not paid for by Government Funds.
However, Snowden also leaked sensitive information and that’s inexcusable. Telling the world America’s plans on what to do about cyber threats would be about like telling the world what the CIA is going to do about foreign threats.[/quote]
I’m not a fan of the guy, but there certainly is, or should be, a presumption of guilt on the part of the government. Not that individuals acting on behalf of the gov’t are inherently guilty but certainly that government policies inherently encroach on our freedoms. The government enjoys no right to privacy and, by enjoying any right to privacy depletes its constituents of the diametrically opposed freedom (i.e. the right to know what the f*ck is going on).
If my government always did things I wholly supported, there would never be a need for secrecy. If my gov’t mostly did things that I generally approve of, a little secrecy might be tolerated. Unfortunately, I trust my gov’t about as far as it could throw itself without killing civilians, tapping phones, or hiring prostitutes.
What makes Snowden less of a homegrown traitor than the likes of Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who spied for the Soviet, then Russian, intelligence services for 22 years, or Aldrich Ames, the CIA officer whose nine years of spying for the Soviet Union and Russia?
I’m more concerned about the changes that need to be made to prevent something like this from happening again. Luckily for the United States and her allies, Snowden was a well meaning but misguided idealist who was overt with the classified material he smuggled out of his workplace.
Imagine the damage he could have wrought if he had been working under the directive of a foreign intelligence service. The most obvious place to start is restricting access for contractors such as Snowden. After all, he was a former employee at Booz Allen Hamilton (a defense contractor for the National Security Agency.)
After 9/11, the intelligence agencies rapidly expanded their workforces and had to contract out some roles to fill gaps, including in language and technical skills such as building and operating surveillance drones. Contractors now constitute roughly 30 percent of the intelligence community’s workforce and some 70 percent of its budget.
This is far too much. Today’s rampant over-classification, with trillions of pages of digital files locked away every year, has ripple effects. More classified data means that more people need security clearances. Today, 4.9 million government workers and contractors have security clearances. Statistically speaking, there are bound to be some bad apples, Manning and Snowden among them. Setting a higher bar for what needs to be secret would allow the government to give access to fewer people.
Intelligence collection and analysis are inherently sensitive tasks that should be reserved primarily for federal employees who have been more extensively vetted and trained than is typical of contractors.
I think the government should work for the people. That being said, if these snooping programs work to stop really fucked up things from happening then go right on ahead. The internet is a two way street if your allowed to look at messed up stuff and have access to info that can be used in negative ways then why wouldn’t the government use it to make sure your not going to pull some crazy acts against innocent people. If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit.
I think the government should work for the people. That being said, if these snooping programs work to stop really fucked up things from happening then go right on ahead. The internet is a two way street if your allowed to look at messed up stuff and have access to info that can be used in negative ways then why wouldn’t the government use it to make sure your not going to pull some crazy acts against innocent people. If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit. [/quote]
Scary that anyone can utter this statement. Look at history and see how well this works out. This approach can be applied to anything the govt. deems necessary. Why in the world would you give them that power? If you have nothing to hide; then let them search your car, your house, your asshole, open your mail, your pockets, your suitcase, your safe deposit box, your cabinets, your medical records, everything. They want it all.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit. [/quote]
Scary that anyone can utter this statement. Look at history and see how well this works out. This approach can be applied to anything the govt. deems necessary. Why in the world would you give them that power? If you have nothing to hide; then let them search your car, your house, your asshole, open your mail, your pockets, your suitcase, your safe deposit box, your cabinets, your medical records, everything. They want it all.[/quote]
Yup, the NSA failed to stop the Boston bombing, better put cameras in every room of every house in America. It’s for your own good.
I think the difference here regarding Treason is that he did this to inform the US citizens of a US action. He did not take confidential documents to an enemy in order to undermine the US, such as handing over US battle plans to the Taliban. This is the difference. It was done to inform the American people to help protect us and inform us of a growing tyranny.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I think the difference here regarding Treason is that he did this to inform the US citizens of a US action. He did not take confidential documents to an enemy in order to undermine the US, such as handing over US battle plans to the Taliban. This is the difference. It was done to inform the American people to help protect us and inform us of a growing tyranny.[/quote]
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I think the difference here regarding Treason is that he did this to inform the US citizens of a US action. He did not take confidential documents to an enemy in order to undermine the US, such as handing over US battle plans to the Taliban. This is the difference. It was done to inform the American people to help protect us and inform us of a growing tyranny.[/quote]
YUP. Exactly how I feel. And he risked everything he had to do it. He did it for love of his country and that’s not treason. I thank him for doing it, because now that we know we can put a stop to it.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit. [/quote]
Scary that anyone can utter this statement. Look at history and see how well this works out. This approach can be applied to anything the govt. deems necessary. Why in the world would you give them that power? If you have nothing to hide; then let them search your car, your house, your asshole, open your mail, your pockets, your suitcase, your safe deposit box, your cabinets, your medical records, everything. They want it all.[/quote]
If you got nothing to hide, let’s put cameras in your house and microphones in you house. If you have nothing to hide, no amount of intrusion is too far.
FACT: Everybody has something to hide. Everybody does something somebody else does not approve of.
If you want to stick bananas in your ass and pick your nose, it’s nobody’s business but your own.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I think the difference here regarding Treason is that he did this to inform the US citizens of a US action. He did not take confidential documents to an enemy in order to undermine the US, such as handing over US battle plans to the Taliban. This is the difference. It was done to inform the American people to help protect us and inform us of a growing tyranny.[/quote]
How does he differentiate from Bradley Manning in your eyes?
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I think the government should work for the people. That being said, if these snooping programs work to stop really fucked up things from happening then go right on ahead. The internet is a two way street if your allowed to look at messed up stuff and have access to info that can be used in negative ways then why wouldn’t the government use it to make sure your not going to pull some crazy acts against innocent people. If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit. [/quote]
Look, true Freedom involves some RISK. Nowhere will you find a violence free society no matter capitalistic, communist, or otherwise. If you are willing to give up privacy for safety, you don’t deserve any safety.
I’m willing to risk it in order to have true liberty. If someone wants to harm me, it’s my prerogative to strike back and/or defend myself. The first and second amendment of the US constitution gives me the tools to do so.
[quote]Jlabs wrote:
If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit. [/quote]
Scary that anyone can utter this statement. Look at history and see how well this works out. This approach can be applied to anything the govt. deems necessary. Why in the world would you give them that power? If you have nothing to hide; then let them search your car, your house, your asshole, open your mail, your pockets, your suitcase, your safe deposit box, your cabinets, your medical records, everything. They want it all.[/quote]
Yup, the NSA failed to stop the Boston bombing, better put cameras in every room of every house in America. It’s for your own good. [/quote]
This is the litmus test to me. They gathered a shit load of data on the assholes whose name I cannot spell. They did nothing. This tells me that they are operating the program under the guise of stopping terror, but not really using it for that.
Given the IRS scandal it makes me very suspicious as to what they are using the data for. Are the using it for targeting? It damn sure ain’t stopping terror. Anybody here can commit an act of terror in no time flat. It’s too damn easy, it will always be easy.
The truth is we know who the terror threats are, we are just too politically correct and too chicken shit about peoples feelings to do anything about it. We can’t offend the terrorists or hurt their feelings.
The terror threats are coming from people associated with Islam, period. It doesn’t mean mulsims are all bad, it does not mean they are all terrorists. It means that the source of the threats are all associated with Islam. Sorry to offend you, but we need to look at the muslim community. We can find out who the bad guys are without invading our privacy or theirs. They are stupid enough to be radical in the wide open.
If some dick wad is talking about how America needs to be punished, or Americans need to die, or Jews or whatever, you can bet your sweet ass either he’s involved with terrorism or know people who are. Go get them, round them up, violate their fucking rights and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I think the difference here regarding Treason is that he did this to inform the US citizens of a US action. He did not take confidential documents to an enemy in order to undermine the US, such as handing over US battle plans to the Taliban. This is the difference. It was done to inform the American people to help protect us and inform us of a growing tyranny.[/quote]
How does he differentiate from Bradley Manning in your eyes?[/quote]
It is different. Bradley did it to undermine the Military and it was intended for other countries and our enemies to rally against the US war policy. It was not intended in any way to help protect the US citizens liberty or freedom.
All you have to do to commit an act of terror is want to. ← Bet you that’s on an NSA computer. Fuck you NSA! Let me hit your trigger words: Terror, bomb, president, assassinate, republican, Tea Party, plane, water supply, poison, Uranium 238, plutonium, Pres. Bush, Iran, etc. So when you read this, I say to you go fuck yourself.
If you have nothing to hide then really who gives a shit.[/quote]
I am 100% for free and open information. If my local police department asked to camp out in my house for the next month to make sure I wasn’t selling drugs or beating my children, I’d say we need to figure out how they’re paying for groceries and put them on the chore wheel. However, even I’m aware that this fallacy works only on the presumption of guilt. That is, only guilty people have something to hide. While that may be true morally, it’s hardly true legally.
Like I said before, it’s an inversion of the natural order. I may or may not have something to hide, but my government is guilty as sin for secretly trying to find out what I have to hide and they’re doubly guilty for secretly trying to find out what I don’t have to hide.
Moreover, like jj-dude and Big Kahuna sorta pointed out, this is a distinctly one-way street. The public is generating the data, our cellular providers are collecting the data, and the government is seizing it with the only remuneration being that we get to continue living ‘terror free’. If the government were collecting and making the data publicly available (and keeping their search heuristics secret) or forcing telco providers to allow public access to these data stores that would be one thing, but this is pretty clearly a government seizure of information, assets, and resources that aren’t obviously or intrinsically theirs.