Sign in to follow this  
2slow

Snowden; In hindsight it looks clear he is/was a whistle blower

Recommended Posts

 

This is an interesting twist. Whistle blowing is one thing, but, intentionally aiding another nation to the detriment of the US? It'll be interesting to see if his actions w/r/t Brazil end up satisfying the grounds for treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we at war with Brazil?

 

Will they welcome us as liberators?

 

Not as far as I know in either case, Tom. But - does the legal definition of treason say anything about War, or does it mention the intent to cause harm to the US?

 

If we can't get good Brazilian BBQ anymore because Snowden gave 'em info that pissed 'em off - *I* am gonna be pissed. ;_)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 › Treason

 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

Leaving aside the question of whether someone who has sought asylum to escape the US still "owes allegiance" to the US, the definition above talks about giving aid and comfort to "enemies."

 

I don't think Brazil qualifies. Has Obama declared police action against them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 › Treason

 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

Leaving aside the question of whether someone who has sought asylum to escape the US still "owes allegiance" to the US, the definition above talks about giving aid and comfort to "enemies."

 

I don't think Brazil qualifies. Has Obama declared police action against them?

 

I stand corrected - a review of the complete statute does indeed articulate that the entity being assisted must be an enemy of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we at war with Brazil?

 

Will they welcome us as liberators?

 

No, but he seems to be shopping it around to gain personal advantage.

 

Whistle-blowers seem to blow that whistle loud and strong not dole things out to make a little money or a comfortable life.

 

I think I'd put him down as an ideolog without an ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are we at war with Brazil?

 

Will they welcome us as liberators?

 

No, but he seems to be shopping it around to gain personal advantage.

 

Whistle-blowers seem to blow that whistle loud and strong not dole things out to make a little money or a comfortable life.

 

I think I'd put him down as an ideolog without an ideology.

 

He decided we needed to know what is being done in our name and have a talk about it. I think he was right.

 

I think he's "doling things out" to survive and can't really blame him for wanting that personal advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381 › Treason

 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

Leaving aside the question of whether someone who has sought asylum to escape the US still "owes allegiance" to the US, the definition above talks about giving aid and comfort to "enemies."

 

I don't think Brazil qualifies. Has Obama declared police action against them?

 

I stand corrected - a review of the complete statute does indeed articulate that the entity being assisted must be an enemy of the US.

Didn't some folks get in a lot of hot water back in the cold war days aiding Israel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is an interesting twist. Whistle blowing is one thing, but, intentionally aiding another nation to the detriment of the US? It'll be interesting to see if his actions w/r/t Brazil end up satisfying the grounds for treason.

 

Could be our counter-intelligence people are running a scam on him with the help of Brazil too. It may be they would prefer he spend his life in Brazil for obvious reasons, or maybe apprehend him. I kind of doubt the latter as our boys seem to doubt he is in control of the information he got and that would make prosecuting him little more than a major and pointless PITA. The possibilities that exist in the Machiavellian world Little Eric has leaped into...

 

I'm sure Putin's boys would have warned him. Occam's Razor says he just really, really wants the fuck out of Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might want to go to Brazil to chat with that Greenwald guy without anyone snooping.

 

As for the Brazilians wanting a fiber cable that is beyond our control, I can understand that. We'll probably send a submarine down to bug it anyway. Or bribe whoever controls the other end. That's the kind of thing the NSA is supposed to do, which is also why I can understand the Brazilians wanting to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might want to go to Brazil to chat with that Greenwald guy without anyone snooping.

 

As for the Brazilians wanting a fiber cable that is beyond our control, I can understand that. We'll probably send a submarine down to bug it anyway. Or bribe whoever controls the other end. That's the kind of thing the NSA is supposed to do, which is also why I can understand the Brazilians wanting to avoid it.

The story seems a tad contrived. One is either on the WWW or not. If Brazil builds their own intertubes with certain country's then what need to they have for Eric? A curious embellishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he could get the whistleblower protection he deserves for his service to us all from the US government, there would be no need to trade his knowledge (not necessarily secrets) for asylum.

 

Who has betrayed whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. ..

 

 

At least one judge thinks he did.

 

Without him, would that case have happened? I imagine not.

 

It was not illegal simply because it was not exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninty-nine counts of releasing classified information on the indictment

Ninty-nine counts of releasing

If one count happens to fall.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

As we all know if it had been a bush or mitt administration you'd have the exact opposite opinion, that makes YOU a hypocrite Mark. YOU are fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. ..

 

 

At least one judge thinks he did.

 

Without him, would that case have happened? I imagine not.

 

It was not illegal simply because it was not exposed.

 

There are judges who think some guns should be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

It sure seems to me that he has merely confirmed what other whistleblowers like Mark Klein and Thomas Drake told us back in the days when speaking out against big government was unpatriotic. Drake and Klein told us about these programs long ago, it's just that the liberal media did not care to pay much attention to those things back then, because we had more important things to cover, like Jeremiah Wright, or some other distraction.

 

 

Here are Drake's comments on Snowden.

 

In the first week of October 2001, President Bush had signed an extraordinary order authorizing blanket dragnet electronic surveillance: Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

It is technically true that the order applies only to meta-data. The problem is that in the digital space, metadata becomes the index for content. And content is gold for determining intent.

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

It sure seems to me that he has merely confirmed what other whistleblowers like Mark Klein and Thomas Drake told us back in the days when speaking out against big government was unpatriotic. Drake and Klein told us about these programs long ago, it's just that the liberal media did not care to pay much attention to those things back then, because we had more important things to cover, like Jeremiah Wright, or some other distraction.

 

 

Here are Drake's comments on Snowden.

 

They didn't give the press anything interesting to print. Remember Jane Fonda's phone being tapped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

It sure seems to me that he has merely confirmed what other whistleblowers like Mark Klein and Thomas Drake told us back in the days when speaking out against big government was unpatriotic. Drake and Klein told us about these programs long ago, it's just that the liberal media did not care to pay much attention to those things back then, because we had more important things to cover, like Jeremiah Wright, or some other distraction.

 

 

Here are Drake's comments on Snowden.

 

They didn't give the press anything interesting to print. Remember Jane Fonda's phone being tapped?

Well then I take comfort in the knowledge that more people found the Fourth Amendment interesting after 1/20/09. I welcome them aboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

It sure seems to me that he has merely confirmed what other whistleblowers like Mark Klein and Thomas Drake told us back in the days when speaking out against big government was unpatriotic. Drake and Klein told us about these programs long ago, it's just that the liberal media did not care to pay much attention to those things back then, because we had more important things to cover, like Jeremiah Wright, or some other distraction.

 

 

Here are Drake's comments on Snowden.

 

In the first week of October 2001, President Bush had signed an extraordinary order authorizing blanket dragnet electronic surveillance: Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

It is technically true that the order applies only to meta-data. The problem is that in the digital space, metadata becomes the index for content. And content is gold for determining intent.

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

 

 

Snowden was different in that his method of exposing what the NSA is doing actually worked, unlike following normal protocols.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to qualify for whistleblower he needs to expose something that is illegal. So far it appears everything he has revealed was approved by all three branches of government, and at all the levels that were designated by Congress to oversee them.

 

For living on the good side of the razor wire in America, United States of, Eric is fucked.

It sure seems to me that he has merely confirmed what other whistleblowers like Mark Klein and Thomas Drake told us back in the days when speaking out against big government was unpatriotic. Drake and Klein told us about these programs long ago, it's just that the liberal media did not care to pay much attention to those things back then, because we had more important things to cover, like Jeremiah Wright, or some other distraction.

 

 

Here are Drake's comments on Snowden.

 

>>>In the first week of October 2001, President Bush had signed an extraordinary order authorizing blanket dragnet electronic surveillance: Stellar Wind was a highly secret program that, without warrant or any approval from the Fisa court, gave the NSA access to all phone records from the major telephone companies, including US-to-US calls. It correlates precisely with the Verizon order revealed by Snowden; and based on what we know, you have to assume that there are standing orders for the other major telephone companies.

It is technically true that the order applies only to meta-data. The problem is that in the digital space, metadata becomes the index for content. And content is gold for determining intent.

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

 

 

I think Eric is post-Patriot Act though. Drake revealed things that the executive branch did without the approval of the FISA court, but Eric revealed things that were.

 

Not that all three branches signing off on something makes it right, smart, or even constitutional, just legal. Unless Eric can gain full control of the information he stole and cut a deal with it, I think he's fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The protests against it by these people, like Merkle, appear more and more as Clapper described. Casablanca.

 

"I'm shocked, just shocked that gambling is going on here!"

 

"Here's your winnings, sir."

 

"Thanks."

 

 

We share with our "friends".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowden interview with Washington Post

 

“For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.”

“All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,” he said.

...

On Dec. 16, in a lawsuit that could not have gone forward without the disclosures made possible by Snowden, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon described the NSA’s capabilities as “almost Orwellian” and said its bulk collection of U.S. domestic telephone records was probably unconstitutional.

...

It is commonly said of Snowden that he broke an oath of secrecy, a turn of phrase that captures a sense of betrayal. NSA Director Keith B. Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., among many others, have used that formula.

In his interview with The Post, Snowden noted matter-of-factly that Standard Form 312, the ­classified-information nondisclosure agreement, is a civil contract. He signed it, but he pledged his fealty elsewhere.

“The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy,” he said. “That is an oath to the Constitution. That is the oath that I kept that Keith Alexander and James Clapper did not.”

People who accuse him of disloyalty, he said, mistake his purpose.

“I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA,” he said. “I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don’t realize it.”

What entitled Snowden, now 30, to take on that responsibility?

“That whole question — who elected you? — inverts the model,” he said. “They elected me. The overseers.”

He named the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

“Dianne Feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions” in committee hearings, he said. “Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs hidden. . . . The FISA court elected me when they decided to legislate from the bench on things that were far beyond the mandate of what that court was ever intended to do. The system failed comprehensively, and each level of oversight, each level of responsibility that should have addressed this, abdicated their responsibility.”

...

Snowden has focused on much the same point from the beginning: Individual targeting would cure most of what he believes is wrong with the NSA.

Six months ago, a reporter asked him by encrypted e-mail why Americans would want the NSA to give up bulk data collection if that would limit a useful intelligence tool.

“I believe the cost of frank public debate about the powers of our government is less than the danger posed by allowing these powers to continue growing in secret,” he replied, calling them “a direct threat to democratic governance.”

In the Moscow interview, Snowden said, “What the government wants is something they never had before,” adding: “They want total awareness. The question is, is that something we should be allowing?”

...

Privacy, as Snowden sees it, is a universal right, applicable to American and foreign surveillance alike.

“I don’t care whether you’re the pope or Osama bin Laden,” he said. “As long as there’s an individualized, articulable, probable cause for targeting these people as legitimate foreign intelligence, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s imposing a ridiculous burden by asking for probable cause. Because, you have to understand, when you have access to the tools the NSA does, probable cause falls out of trees.”

 

I agree with most of what he says, except that last part. It seems circular. If you have access to NSA tools, probable cause falls from the trees, but if you restrict access based on probable cause, you don't have access to NSA tools any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's simply following his ideology. Somehow, "treason" remains the wrong word for it.

 

I think the ISP's main concern is these revelations are motivating the world to move away from a US based tech-world, and that's very, very, bad for most of them. Tax rates on the wealthy in the EU are significantly higher. Hence, Obama has a "panel" with recommendations. A little window dressing, perhaps. Might even have an additional layer of cross-checking that isn't a bad ideal at all? Might work, because at the end of the day there aren't many governments that adhere to a rule of law and have privacy standards that match ours. No other nation has a court review like FISA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's simply following his ideology. Somehow, "treason" remains the wrong word for it.

 

I think the ISP's main concern is these revelations are motivating the world to move away from a US based tech-world, and that's very, very, bad for most of them. Tax rates on the wealthy in the EU are significantly higher. Hence, Obama has a "panel" with recommendations. A little window dressing, perhaps. Might even have an additional layer of cross-checking that isn't a bad ideal at all? Might work, because at the end of the day there aren't many governments that adhere to a rule of law and have privacy standards that match ours. No other nation has a court review like FISA.

 

Shhhh, you aren't supposed to notice things like that.

 

Or various sharing agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He's simply following his ideology. Somehow, "treason" remains the wrong word for it.

 

I think the ISP's main concern is these revelations are motivating the world to move away from a US based tech-world, and that's very, very, bad for most of them. Tax rates on the wealthy in the EU are significantly higher. Hence, Obama has a "panel" with recommendations. A little window dressing, perhaps. Might even have an additional layer of cross-checking that isn't a bad ideal at all? Might work, because at the end of the day there aren't many governments that adhere to a rule of law and have privacy standards that match ours. No other nation has a court review like FISA.

 

Shhhh, you aren't supposed to notice things like that.

 

Or various sharing agreements.

 

It's gonna be curious when his 1 year VISA expires who agrees to take him in. From what I've read, there's a lot of people who are much more sympathetic to his views than a year ago. In fact, the biggest downside seems to be a rethinking by our 'secondary allies' - specifically, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa. They don't much appreciate being so beholden to the US techno-hegemony and, unlike some others, don't HAVE to be reliant on our infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but he might be a little too busy helping Mr. Putin track down some Chechnians to talk to anybody at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metadata Collection Had No Discernible Impact On Terrorism

 

 

The NAF analysts begin by pointing out after the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden were first published the agency's abettors countered by claiming that their extensive spying on Americans had averted several terrorist attacks. As the NAF reminds us:

President Obama defended the NSA surveillance programs during a visit to Berlin, saying: “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany. So lives have been saved.” Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, testified before Congress that: “the information gathered from these programs provided the U.S. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world.” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said on the House floor in July that “54 times [the NSA programs] stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe – saving real lives.”

The new NAF report finds that these claims are almost entirely specious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Metadata Collection Had No Discernible Impact On Terrorism

 

 

The NAF analysts begin by pointing out after the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden were first published the agency's abettors countered by claiming that their extensive spying on Americans had averted several terrorist attacks. As the NAF reminds us:

President Obama defended the NSA surveillance programs during a visit to Berlin, saying: “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany. So lives have been saved.” Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, testified before Congress that: “the information gathered from these programs provided the U.S. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world.” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said on the House floor in July that “54 times [the NSA programs] stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe – saving real lives.”

The new NAF report finds that these claims are almost entirely specious...

 

Like I said, it's only the index.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else see that Comcast commercial (like in every break in the NFL playoffs) "Show me hockey games" ?

 

That's right, John L, Roberts, CEO of Comcast and endorser of the Affordable Care Act wants to have a microphone in your living room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else see that Comcast commercial (like in every break in the NFL playoffs) "Show me hockey games" ?

 

That's right, John L, Roberts, CEO of Comcast and endorser of the Affordable Care Act wants to have a microphone in your living room.

 

Greedy bastards, they already got the camera and mic in your lap tops and mobile phones…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Binney - American Whistleblower

 

You've never heard of him and he had no real impact because he went through established channels, all of which dead-end in a swamp.

 

...In 2002 - long before the revelations of Edward Snowden rocked the world - Binney and several former colleagues went to Congress and the Department of Defense, asking that the NSA be investigated. Not only was the super-secretive agency wasting taxpayer dollars on ineffective programs, they argued, it was broadly violating constitutional guarantees to privacy and due process.

 

The government didn't just turn a blind eye to the agency's activities; it later accused the whistleblowers of leaking state secrets. A federal investigation of Binney - including an FBI search and seizure of his home and office computers that destroyed his consulting business - exonerated him on all charges.

 

"We are a clear example that [going through] the proper channels doesn't work," says Binney, who approves of Edward Snowden's strategy of going straight to the media. At the same time, Binney criticizes Snowden's leaking of documents not directly related to the NSA's surveillance of American citizens and violation of constitutional rights. Binney believes that the NSA is vital to national security but has been become unmoored due to technological advances that vastly extend its capabilities and leadership that has no use for limits on government power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anybody else see that Comcast commercial (like in every break in the NFL playoffs) "Show me hockey games" ?

 

That's right, John L, Roberts, CEO of Comcast and endorser of the Affordable Care Act wants to have a microphone in your living room.

 

Greedy bastards, they already got the camera and mic in your lap tops and mobile phones…

 

That's the way your hard core commie works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anybody else see that Comcast commercial (like in every break in the NFL playoffs) "Show me hockey games" ?

 

That's right, John L, Roberts, CEO of Comcast and endorser of the Affordable Care Act wants to have a microphone in your living room.

 

Greedy bastards, they already got the camera and mic in your lap tops and mobile phones…

 

That's the way your hard core commie works.

yeah right you fascist pig.… :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first realized our cable boxes were bugged...I...I...I cried...I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought: My God...the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because understand that these were not monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who installed cable service with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that....

 

If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenwald educates a BBC journalist about journalism.

 

that was great, I wish we had 1000 Greenwalds running around news rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon Snowden

 

He should also get a medal of some kind for his service.

 

If he helps Putin snag someone who is plotting to plant a bomb at Sochi, he may get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon Snowden

 

He should also get a medal of some kind for his service.

 

I dunno, Tom - while *some* of his illegal revelations may indeed have had a social benefit - the damage he caused to our collections capabilities, trust relationships, and business will take an awfully long time to recover from, if we ever can. Give him a medal? I don't think so. He is reckless with his revelations, in that he made decisions to reveal national secrets without being able to understand the ramification of his revelations. Hero? Sounds a lot more like personal hubris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pardon Snowden

 

He should also get a medal of some kind for his service.

 

I dunno, Tom - while *some* of his illegal revelations may indeed have had a social benefit - the damage he caused to our collections capabilities, trust relationships, and business will take an awfully long time to recover from, if we ever can. Give him a medal? I don't think so. He is reckless with his revelations, in that he made decisions to reveal national secrets without being able to understand the ramification of his revelations. Hero? Sounds a lot more like personal hubris.

 

Illegal revelations? Did you read the piece above about the previous whistleblower who tried to do it through legal channels and found that they all dead-end in a swamp? Illegally was the ONLY effective way to accomplish his goal.

 

They were not reckless, and are not being reckless. Watch the interview above with Greenwald. They have been careful about what they released.

 

Our collections capabilities continue to improve with technology and he did not halt that, he just exposed what has been happening. If that sunlight on the situation damaged trust relationships that were ill-founded, so be it. Who is to blame? Those who can't be trusted, or those who expose the people who can't be trusted?

 

Meanwhile, Snowden's actions continue to have positive ramifications. Hat tip to Obama for at least a modest reform in the metadata program, something that would not have happened without Snowden.

 

Over in Congress, they are learning about NSA activities from private security experts because the NSA won't tell their overseers in Congress what they do.

 

Yes, he's a hero to me. He did this so that we could know what our government is up to. I appreciate it. I don't trust the ever-expanding security state and appreciate whistleblowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pardon Snowden

 

He should also get a medal of some kind for his service.

 

I dunno, Tom - while *some* of his illegal revelations may indeed have had a social benefit - the damage he caused to our collections capabilities, trust relationships, and business will take an awfully long time to recover from, if we ever can. Give him a medal? I don't think so. He is reckless with his revelations, in that he made decisions to reveal national secrets without being able to understand the ramification of his revelations. Hero? Sounds a lot more like personal hubris.

 

Illegal revelations? Did you read the piece above about the previous whistleblower who tried to do it through legal channels and found that they all dead-end in a swamp? Illegally was the ONLY effective way to accomplish his goal.

 

They were not reckless, and are not being reckless. Watch the interview above with Greenwald. They have been careful about what they released.

 

Our collections capabilities continue to improve with technology and he did not halt that, he just exposed what has been happening. If that sunlight on the situation damaged trust relationships that were ill-founded, so be it. Who is to blame? Those who can't be trusted, or those who expose the people who can't be trusted?

 

Meanwhile, Snowden's actions continue to have positive ramifications. Hat tip to Obama for at least a modest reform in the metadata program, something that would not have happened without Snowden.

 

Over in Congress, they are learning about NSA activities from private security experts because the NSA won't tell their overseers in Congress what they do.

 

Yes, he's a hero to me. He did this so that we could know what our government is up to. I appreciate it. I don't trust the ever-expanding security state and appreciate whistleblowers.

 

Tom - the bolded part of your comment speaks to your naivete. By exposing these capabilities, he has effectively negated our ability to employ them! ALL nations conduct espionage and collect intelligence - and we're more open about our capabilities than any other country in the world. We don't live in a "happy happy joy joy" world - there are evil people who will use whatever snippets of information that they can grab to cause harm, and Snowden has handed and continues to hand those people the greatest bounty that they could ever hope for - knowledge of what our intel community is interested in, how they go about getting it, and who they get it from.

 

Tell me please, from an international perspective, if you think that you are able to define who can and can't be trusted?

 

Careful about what they released? Yeah - to the point of maximizing the "WOW" factor.

 

As to knowing what your government is up to - I understand and appreciate your sentiment. But - as with all knowledge, a little is a dangerous thing. You wanna read up on how nuclear fission works? COOL - go do it. I'd suggest that before you make your own Mr. Reactor, that you also learn how to control the reaction before you set it in place. Snowden's revelations are a lot like that. The protestations of his defenders aside, he started the reaction without having any idea how many people would be burned, with no way of knowing that anyone could control it before he set if off causing harms a really don't think he intended. If that's not reckless, than I don't understand the definition of the word.

 

I don't trust our government to do much right - and I definitely don't trust them to not misuse information or improperly expand precedent to increase their power, control and authority.

 

That said - there isn't anyone else that's in the business of trying to protect us from the bad actors, and good intentions be damned, he willfully damaged their ability to provide that protection. That doesn't make him a hero - he's caused some real hurt. That you're applauding him says that the people you're OK hurting have been doing a good job at insulating you and everyone else from the wolves that are barking at the door. You might wanta think a little about that before you submit Snowden's Canonization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the really dangerous people were unaware of NSA capabilities before Snowden's revelations.

 

They can't use the capability to collect data on all of us? Boo hoo. I don't think all of the "wolves at the door" are overseas.

 

From an international perspective, I trust no one and no government. But domestic surveillance is not international, it's domestic.

 

You seem to sort of agree that all the wolves are not overseas:

 

I don't trust our government to do much right - and I definitely don't trust them to not misuse information or improperly expand precedent to increase their power, control and authority.

 

How do you propose to prevent it? Through proper channels, I'd guess, since you do not like the illegal route. Did you happen to notice how that went when it was tried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the really dangerous people were unaware of NSA capabilities before Snowden's revelations.

 

They can't use the capability to collect data on all of us? Boo hoo. I don't think all of the "wolves at the door" are overseas.

 

From an international perspective, I trust no one and no government. But domestic surveillance is not international, it's domestic.

 

You seem to sort of agree that all the wolves are not overseas:

 

I don't trust our government to do much right - and I definitely don't trust them to not misuse information or improperly expand precedent to increase their power, control and authority.

 

How do you propose to prevent it? Through proper channels, I'd guess, since you do not like the illegal route. Did you happen to notice how that went when it was tried?

 

Your comment about where the wolves are is spot on - they're everywhere. W/R/T bad actors being aware of our capabilities - there's a HUGE difference between understanding what's technically possible, and knowing how that technology has been put into operation, who it targets, and what's being done with the collections.

 

Would you want to give your opponents in a football game your playbooks before you met 'em on the field? In my angry opinion, that's what Snowden has done.

 

The way we collectively control our government is to first prevent them from having uncontrolled authority in the first place. Ooops - our bad - we screwed that up already. The only other mechanism we have is to address their enforcement actions when those actions appear to exceed the boundaries of authority that have been accepted by the voting populace.

 

So - do we want to continue to develop actionable intelligence to provide protections for the citizens and businesses of the country? Or, do we want to accept that bad people are going to continually try to do bad things? Or - do we want to reduce our desirability as a target to the point that nobody wants to cause us harm? I'd like the 3rd - but, given our hesitatingly accepted role as the big kid on the block, I don't know how we do that without accepting some other perhaps not as benevolent entity as that new big kid.

 

I don't know what the correct set of answers is to balance government's exercise of authority with the need for it to be somewhat intrusive to provide what we ask of it.

 

I don't think that doing what Snowden's done is the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I doubt the really dangerous people were unaware of NSA capabilities before Snowden's revelations.

 

They can't use the capability to collect data on all of us? Boo hoo. I don't think all of the "wolves at the door" are overseas.

 

From an international perspective, I trust no one and no government. But domestic surveillance is not international, it's domestic.

 

You seem to sort of agree that all the wolves are not overseas:

 

I don't trust our government to do much right - and I definitely don't trust them to not misuse information or improperly expand precedent to increase their power, control and authority.

 

How do you propose to prevent it? Through proper channels, I'd guess, since you do not like the illegal route. Did you happen to notice how that went when it was tried?

 

Your comment about where the wolves are is spot on - they're everywhere. W/R/T bad actors being aware of our capabilities - there's a HUGE difference between understanding what's technically possible, and knowing how that technology has been put into operation, who it targets, and what's being done with the collections.

 

Would you want to give your opponents in a football game your playbooks before you met 'em on the field? In my angry opinion, that's what Snowden has done.

 

The way we collectively control our government is to first prevent them from having uncontrolled authority in the first place. Ooops - our bad - we screwed that up already. The only other mechanism we have is to address their enforcement actions when those actions appear to exceed the boundaries of authority that have been accepted by the voting populace.

 

So - do we want to continue to develop actionable intelligence to provide protections for the citizens and businesses of the country? Or, do we want to accept that bad people are going to continually try to do bad things? Or - do we want to reduce our desirability as a target to the point that nobody wants to cause us harm? I'd like the 3rd - but, given our hesitatingly accepted role as the big kid on the block, I don't know how we do that without accepting some other perhaps not as benevolent entity as that new big kid.

 

I don't know what the correct set of answers is to balance government's exercise of authority with the need for it to be somewhat intrusive to provide what we ask of it.

 

I don't think that doing what Snowden's done is the answer.

 

Which capabilities did he divulge the use of that concern you so much? Specifically, please. And what actionable intelligence have these programs yielded?

 

Re the bolded bit, actions that never appear would seem to be exempt from that kind of control. If we don't know about those enforcement actions, how are we to know they exceed the boundaries?

 

Since the only way to know appears to be illegal whistle blowers, I support them. Without them, that "only other mechanism" you spoke of does not exist and we are left with no mechanism for control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have to be secrets in LE, so total openness is problematic. There will always be things that "we" can't verify. Don't set the standard there, because that will never happen. Some parts of the government must be brought into it for oversight, the only discussion that is worth beans is what parts of it are and should be doing that.

 

It doesn't make sense to spend billions on crafting ways to detect bad guys and then hand them a blueprint of how to avoid those methods, so Snowden's behavior will never be rewarded by the USG. He has to uncover actual abuse, not evidence of the potential for abuse to qualify for whistleblower status. So far, no dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have to be secrets in LE, so total openness is problematic. There will always be things that "we" can't verify. Don't set the standard there, because that will never happen. Some parts of the government must be brought into it for oversight, the only discussion that is worth beans is what parts of it are and should be doing that.

 

It doesn't make sense to spend billions on crafting ways to detect bad guys and then hand them a blueprint of how to avoid those methods, so Snowden's behavior will never be rewarded by the USG. He has to uncover actual abuse, not evidence of the potential for abuse to qualify for whistleblower status. So far, no dice.

 

 

It's a good thing no one is advocating total openness!

 

How about if we discuss the oversight parts some more, specifically with reference to what badlat posted above:

 

The National Security Agency unlawfully gathered as many as tens of thousands of e-mails and other electronic communications between Americans as part of a now-discontinued collection program, according to a 2011 secret court opinion.

 

The 86-page opinion, which was declassified by U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday, explains why the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time ruled the collection method unconstitutional. The judge, John D. Bates, found that the government had “advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.”

 

Illegal data collection is not abuse?

 

Telling the court you're doing one thing and then going and doing another is not abuse?

 

I'm in favor of legal data collection with effective oversight, but thanks to Snowden, we know that's not what has been happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I doubt the really dangerous people were unaware of NSA capabilities before Snowden's revelations.

 

They can't use the capability to collect data on all of us? Boo hoo. I don't think all of the "wolves at the door" are overseas.

 

From an international perspective, I trust no one and no government. But domestic surveillance is not international, it's domestic.

 

You seem to sort of agree that all the wolves are not overseas:

 

I don't trust our government to do much right - and I definitely don't trust them to not misuse information or improperly expand precedent to increase their power, control and authority.

 

How do you propose to prevent it? Through proper channels, I'd guess, since you do not like the illegal route. Did you happen to notice how that went when it was tried?

 

Your comment about where the wolves are is spot on - they're everywhere. W/R/T bad actors being aware of our capabilities - there's a HUGE difference between understanding what's technically possible, and knowing how that technology has been put into operation, who it targets, and what's being done with the collections.

 

Would you want to give your opponents in a football game your playbooks before you met 'em on the field? In my angry opinion, that's what Snowden has done.

 

The way we collectively control our government is to first prevent them from having uncontrolled authority in the first place. Ooops - our bad - we screwed that up already. The only other mechanism we have is to address their enforcement actions when those actions appear to exceed the boundaries of authority that have been accepted by the voting populace.

 

So - do we want to continue to develop actionable intelligence to provide protections for the citizens and businesses of the country? Or, do we want to accept that bad people are going to continually try to do bad things? Or - do we want to reduce our desirability as a target to the point that nobody wants to cause us harm? I'd like the 3rd - but, given our hesitatingly accepted role as the big kid on the block, I don't know how we do that without accepting some other perhaps not as benevolent entity as that new big kid.

 

I don't know what the correct set of answers is to balance government's exercise of authority with the need for it to be somewhat intrusive to provide what we ask of it.

 

I don't think that doing what Snowden's done is the answer.

 

Which capabilities did he divulge the use of that concern you so much? Specifically, please. And what actionable intelligence have these programs yielded?

 

Re the bolded bit, actions that never appear would seem to be exempt from that kind of control. If we don't know about those enforcement actions, how are we to know they exceed the boundaries?

 

Since the only way to know appears to be illegal whistle blowers, I support them. Without them, that "only other mechanism" you spoke of does not exist and we are left with no mechanism for control.

 

Tom - I won't be as specific as you might like, but, sharing collection targets, what was collected how provides a roadmap that our adversaries can easily follow to communicate in a manner that's immune to those collection methods. Result? Those methods are no longer efficacious, and the budget and time spent developing them has been wasted. I also won't engage in conversations about the "yield" of the programs that were revealed by Snowden - as what they've yielded thus far isn't public knowledge, and really isn't pertinent to the discussion. Much intelligence is used like the actuarial data used to write insurance policies: Not individually actionable, but, when analyzed in aggregate, it can provide real data.

 

As you mentioned in your response to Mark - "effective oversight" may or may not be lacking. How do you personally have enough information to determine what constitutes effective oversight, much less whether or not the oversight that was exercised was effective? How does an IT guy like Snowden know? He's not an analyst, he's not an operator, he's not been briefed on the goals, intentions and limits of the programs such that he knows enough to make those kinds of determinations. He WAS briefed on the potential damages that an improper disclosure would cause, and chose to do so anyway.

 

I understand the guy's motivation, and I understand and empathize with the peripherally informed folks who think that he did something good. All this cheerleading for Snowden is completely ignoring the real damage and substantial costs his actions have incurred - and until those are publicly released, any determination that his actions ended up as a "net good" are just unfounded speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cover has all been blown away, what's the problem with discussing it?

 

"Trust us, there was terrible damage!"

 

Um, no, lost me at the first two words.

 

When a chief judge of the FISA court comes out and says the NSA told him one thing and did another thing that he found unconstitutional, that is evidence of a problem to me.

 

Snowden knew that what he was looking at and what the public was being told he might look at were different things and he wanted the public told. So he told us. And guess what? A lot of us don't see the need for all the metadata collection, the email and text collection, and all the other domestic data collection that has been going on. We feel that a government with that kind of power is more dangerous than any terrorist, especially when we know the agencies involved lie to the oversight court and just plain don't talk to Congressional overseers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cover has all been blown away, what's the problem with discussing it?

 

"Trust us, there was terrible damage!"

 

Um, no, lost me at the first two words.

 

When a chief judge of the FISA court comes out and says the NSA told him one thing and did another thing that he found unconstitutional, that is evidence of a problem to me.

 

Snowden knew that what he was looking at and what the public was being told he might look at were different things and he wanted the public told. So he told us. And guess what? A lot of us don't see the need for all the metadata collection, the email and text collection, and all the other domestic data collection that has been going on. We feel that a government with that kind of power is more dangerous than any terrorist, especially when we know the agencies involved lie to the oversight court and just plain don't talk to Congressional overseers.

 

So "A lot of us don't see the need" - is justification for a rogue like Snowden, no matter how well intended his actions were, to destroy capabilities and networks that took years and untold dollars to develop? To cause real harm to fragile relationships that will take a generation or more to repair?

 

Sorry Tom - transparency in government has limits - and Snowden violated those limits.

 

I understand your feelings w/r/t the government having too much power, and I can empathize with that. But - damaging its ability to protect citizens isn't the way to go about effecting a change in that balance.

 

I've said all I will say on this topic - you're entitled to your opinion, I'll respect it, but, will not agree with your interpretation of the circumstances that formed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If damaging the ability of government to illegally collect data results in collateral damage to its ability to protect citizens, that's just like any other collateral damage. Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If damaging the ability of government to illegally collect data results in collateral damage to its ability to protect citizens, that's just like any other collateral damage. Too bad.

 

You set cars on fire in the 60s, didn't ya? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If damaging the ability of government to illegally collect data results in collateral damage to its ability to protect citizens, that's just like any other collateral damage. Too bad.

 

You set cars on fire in the 60s, didn't ya? :-)

 

Fuck! You guys were watching me with the magnifying glass and the Matchbox cars way back then??? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the Presidents statement today. I think the nut of it is that the scope of these new capabilities and vulnerabilities are so vast that they raise new questions.

 

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they really raise new political questions about how we wish to be governed?

 

In part they do, but they needed help to make us ask those questions.

 

A hero's help.

 

Snowden's help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to invite Snowden back to the US (he doesn't need a "pardon" because he didn't do anything wrong) and recognize him for his contribution to society everywhere, not just in the US.

 

He is a real hero, willing to sacrifice his personal safety and comfort, and future employability, so the truth can come out. Not many people of that calibre left.

 

If he doesn't like the US anymore, I'd like to invite him to move here to Canada. There's a certain prime minister who needs replacing up here.

 

dash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If damaging the ability of government to illegally collect data results in collateral damage to its ability to protect citizens, that's just like any other collateral damage. Too bad.

 

You set cars on fire in the 60s, didn't ya? :-)

 

Shit before that, 130 foot bridge, cheap balsa glider, film can, carbide, water, pack of matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they really raise new political questions about how we wish to be governed?

 

In part they do, but they needed help to make us ask those questions.

 

A hero's help.

 

Snowden's help.

 

Seems to me that question is fundamentally a part of all this, that and becoming dependent on the intertubes and modern conveniences. Snowden points to the risk of governmental abuse exclusively though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure is that you can thank Snowden for the baby steps made by the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to live in Russia, but I do get the benefits of Mr. Snowden's sacrifice. Those benefits may seem like "not much" to you, but are important to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark would change his tune if it were Bush’s war on whistle blowers. But he’s a partisan jackass so WTF do you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much for a life in Russia.

 

Have you lived there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to live in Russia, but I do get the benefits of Mr. Snowden's sacrifice. Those benefits may seem like "not much" to you, but are important to me.

What did you get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the fence about Snowden before, but the more "revelations" that come out - the more I'm convinced he is a traitor and should be in jail.

 

What is the point in revealing this sort of national capability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0

 

We basically just told the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else how to defeat our surveillance.

 

The answer to your question is the same as my answer to Mark's question. From the article:

 

 

President Obama is scheduled to announce on Friday what recommendations he is accepting from an advisory panel on changing N.S.A. practices. The panel agreed with Silicon Valley executives that some of the techniques developed by the agency to find flaws in computer systems undermine global confidence in a range of American-made information products like laptop computers and cloud services.

Embracing Silicon Valley’s critique of the N.S.A., the panel has recommended banning, except in extreme cases, the N.S.A. practice of exploiting flaws in common software to aid in American surveillance and cyberattacks. It also called for an end to government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems, and said the government should never develop secret ways into computer systems to exploit them, which sometimes include software implants.

 

The scope of these new capabilities and vulnerabilities are so vast that they raise new questions. The point of revealing them is to make us ask those questions.

 

We once had a thread about something the NSA was doing out in Utah. And nobody came. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Snowden as a hero, but I am still glad he leaked the info he did. I have real mixed emotions on a lot of this. On the one hand, I understand Jeff's point regarding sabotaging our surveilance capabilities in regards to foreign entities. On the other hand, the NSA has clearly been using much of their technology against us, and so I want to know what it's capabilities are, since anything they have in their toolchest may be used against us. I have lost all trust in the institution, and frankly in the govt itself. Having lost that trust, I am not satsified to hear that there is no evidence something has not been used against us yet. I am not satisfied with hearing "trust us". This is a serious problem for us, and I still don't think most people get how serious it is. Technology always moves in the direction of more powerful, less expensive, and more ubiquitous. These changes are not linear, they are exponential. That means that an expensive and limited capability like the usb/radio net tool, will in half a decade be commonplace and cheap to use against all of us. Just like two decades ago it would be unfathomable to think that the govt would have a permanent record of all of our emails, text messages, reading habits, and phone call histories, people today are discouting the possibility of the govt having listening devices and spyware installed in our refrigerators, cars, and toasters. People were wrong two decades ago, and they are wrong today. I fully realize that it makes me look crazy to say this, but that is only because I am saying it today and not five years from now, when everyone will just accept that it is the way things are. Basically, we are fucked unless we turn the ship around and soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I understand what you're saying but I disagree with the remedy. I don't think we need to blow up all of our spying capability because it might get used on us. Remember, WE are the gov't. If WE don't trust it, then its our own fault. And if we want to fix it, then we need to change the fundamental fabric of gov't and start putting people there who are public servants instead of power hungry fucktards. It CAN be done, it just takes us getting off our collective lazy asses to do it. The whole point of a representative gov't is that we send people we trust to watch over the NSA types so we don't have to disclose all our secrets to the world. I get Tom's point and I get yours.... but there are REAL bad guys out there plotting real harm to our nation. I am not willing to put that into the sunshine merely to appease the libertarian senses. Our liberties ARE extremely important. But you don't fix it by shooting the sheepdog when the sheepdog gets a little overzealous protecting the flock - you get a better shepard who is more involved in the process over overseeing the watchdog.

 

That trust is NOT going to return merely by destroying our capability. It will return only when we take WE THE PEOPLE seriously and take our gov't back and start demanding accountability from our public servants.

 

My take is that it is probably already too late. Most folks don't care, some do but have no ability to do anything through traditional poltical channels, the few who work outside of traditional channels are marginalized as crazies, extremists, traitors or terrorists. Do you honestly see any way to change things through elections in the next 4 years? Because if we are not past the point of no return now, we certainly will be in the next 5 to 10 years. At what point do we no longer have a form of govt worth defending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the fence about Snowden before, but the more "revelations" that come out - the more I'm convinced he is a traitor and should be in jail.

 

What is the point in revealing this sort of national capability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0

 

We basically just told the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else how to defeat our surveillance.

Sorry Jeff, But you can't pin the fault for this on Snowden. The US government gave up this information when they decided to abuse the technology available to them and cast aside the laws our Nation was founded on. If not Snowden, eventually somebody would have blown the whistle on this. I would hope any citizen in a position to shed light on government abuse, yourself included, would have the balls to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was on the fence about Snowden before, but the more "revelations" that come out - io more I'm convinced he is a traitor and should be in jail.

 

What is the point in revealing this sort of national capability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0

 

We basically just told the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else how to defeat our surveillance.

Sorry Jeff, But you can't pin the fault for this on Snowden. The US government gave up this information when they decided to abuse the technology available to them and cast aside the laws our Nation was founded on. If not Snowden, eventually somebody would have blown the whistle on this. I would hope any citizen in a position to shed light on government abuse, yourself included, would have the balls to do the same.

Sorry but Jeff has no balls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they hadn't been revealed, there would not have been anything to undermine global confidence in American companies in the first place. Chicken or the egg.....

 

And my point being that Snowden went from an almost whistleblower when he revealed the level of information collected on US citizens to a traitor when he basically just data dumped all the rest of it to the press. He essentially did a Bradley Manning when he went beyond abuses of US citizens by the NSA and started revealing some of our most sensitive foreign collection information. If he had stopped at just the NSA collection of phone metadata and email archiving...... he might have been seen as an actual WB. Revealing that we listen in on Merkel's cell phone and are able to see inside Chinese and Iranian computer networks does NOT serve America's interests and are not things that American citizens need to know about much less ask questions about.

 

You DO see the difference, right?

 

 

"...government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems..." undermine confidence and you can't keep that kind of thing secret from cryptogeeks.

 

When was this "data dump" you're talking about? My impression is that he has not released "all the rest" of what he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But if they hadn't been revealed, there would not have been anything to undermine global confidence in American companies in the first place. Chicken or the egg.....

 

And my point being that Snowden went from an almost whistleblower when he revealed the level of information collected on US citizens to a traitor when he basically just data dumped all the rest of it to the press. He essentially did a Bradley Manning when he went beyond abuses of US citizens by the NSA and started revealing some of our most sensitive foreign collection information. If he had stopped at just the NSA collection of phone metadata and email archiving...... he might have been seen as an actual WB. Revealing that we listen in on Merkel's cell phone and are able to see inside Chinese and Iranian computer networks does NOT serve America's interests and are not things that American citizens need to know about much less ask questions about.

 

You DO see the difference, right?

 

 

"...government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems..." undermine confidence and you can't keep that kind of thing secret from cryptogeeks.

 

When was this "data dump" you're talking about? My impression is that he has not released "all the rest" of what he has.

 

Upset that our intelligence system puts a lot of effort into cracking codes? Shirley, you can't be serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was on the fence about Snowden before, but the more "revelations" that come out - io more I'm convinced he is a traitor and should be in jail.

 

What is the point in revealing this sort of national capability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0

 

We basically just told the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else how to defeat our surveillance.

Sorry Jeff, But you can't pin the fault for this on Snowden. The US government gave up this information when they decided to abuse the technology available to them and cast aside the laws our Nation was founded on. If not Snowden, eventually somebody would have blown the whistle on this. I would hope any citizen in a position to shed light on government abuse, yourself included, would have the balls to do the same.

Sorry but Jeff has no balls...

I don't agree with Jeff on some issues, but he is one of very few people on this entire forum who I highly respect. I've met a lot of people through SA and while I have not met Jeff, I regard him as one of the more valued members of this online wasteland. He presents reasoned arguments and has shown himself capable of evolving views while remaining firm to his morals. Balls that clang, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was on the fence about Snowden before, but the more "revelations" that come out - io more I'm convinced he is a traitor and should be in jail.

 

What is the point in revealing this sort of national capability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?_r=0

 

We basically just told the Chinese, Iranians and anyone else how to defeat our surveillance.

Sorry Jeff, But you can't pin the fault for this on Snowden. The US government gave up this information when they decided to abuse the technology available to them and cast aside the laws our Nation was founded on. If not Snowden, eventually somebody would have blown the whistle on this. I would hope any citizen in a position to shed light on government abuse, yourself included, would have the balls to do the same.
Sorry but Jeff has no balls...
I don't agree with Jeff on some issues, but he is one of very few people on this entire forum who I highly respect. I've met a lot of people through SA and while I have not met Jeff, I regard him as one of the more valued members of this online wasteland. He presents reasoned arguments and has shown himself capable of evolving views while remaining firm to his morals. Balls that clang, I say.

Thanks! FUK FUK Jo is an amusing clown. Clowns make me happy.

Don’t sweat it Jeff, my wife also has no balls and she’s fairly assertive. It’s not the end of the world after all... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But if they hadn't been revealed, there would not have been anything to undermine global confidence in American companies in the first place. Chicken or the egg.....

 

And my point being that Snowden went from an almost whistleblower when he revealed the level of information collected on US citizens to a traitor when he basically just data dumped all the rest of it to the press. He essentially did a Bradley Manning when he went beyond abuses of US citizens by the NSA and started revealing some of our most sensitive foreign collection information. If he had stopped at just the NSA collection of phone metadata and email archiving...... he might have been seen as an actual WB. Revealing that we listen in on Merkel's cell phone and are able to see inside Chinese and Iranian computer networks does NOT serve America's interests and are not things that American citizens need to know about much less ask questions about.

 

You DO see the difference, right?

 

 

"...government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems..." undermine confidence and you can't keep that kind of thing secret from cryptogeeks.

 

When was this "data dump" you're talking about? My impression is that he has not released "all the rest" of what he has.

 

Upset that our intelligence system puts a lot of effort into cracking codes? Shirley, you can't be serious.

 

Imagine I was talking about that aspect!

 

"...government efforts to weaken publicly available encryption systems..." do not stop with just cracking codes.

 

Were you busy spinning for Al Gore's Clipper Chip back in the day?

 

The problem here is the same as it was back then: when (not if) word gets around that electronics "Made In USA" translates to "Transmits to NSA" we'll have some trouble selling them around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites