Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
480 replies to this topic

#1 2slow

2slow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,246 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 01 November 2013 - 11:42 PM

I think the Obama administration would rather have a flat tax and repeal r v wade than say it, but Snowden uncovered massive abuses by the government and history will view him as the most important whistle blower of his generation and possibly of all time.  

Mark do you still view him as a selfish traitor?  Have the backpedaling, apologies and policy changes of the administration on revelations by Snowden changed your opinion?     

 

 



#2 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 11:49 PM

not a traitor.  I wish him the best.  I can't begin to imagine what the real extent of NSA spying is.  I find it troubling.

 

My reasonable proposal would declassify 90% of all documents after 5 years.



#3 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 11:52 PM

I view him as a naif. A computer programmer looking at that stuff is kind of like a pig looking at a wrist watch. He never should have been given access, and if that was unavoidable, he should have been closely supervised. I'm believe he thinks he saw something strange and was spooked by it. 

 

 What appears to most people as abuses was SOP. It's necessary to understand how those SOP's came into being and exactly how they were being handled in order to judge them. 



#4 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,716 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:03 AM

Jon Stewart did a great bit the other night about how Congress had fully authorized the NSA to perform all the tasks of spying that they are now all screaming their heads off about, including spying on our Eurpean allies.

#5 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,173 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:07 AM

System administrator, not a computer programmer. Bait cutter, not a fisherman.



#6 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:16 AM

Jon Stewart did a great bit the other night about how Congress had fully authorized the NSA to perform all the tasks of spying that they are now all screaming their heads off about, including spying on our Eurpean allies.

 

 Did he mention the stuff about every intell insider we have swearing they spy on us too? They do, and will continue to do so. The rank, phony hypocrisy of this outrage the French and German leadership are displaying will be revealed.  

 

 The SIGINT games will continue too. Nobody is going to abandon this field and blind themselves. That there will be more people aware of it is a good thing, but I don't think Snowden would have knowingly traded his freedom for this.  

 

 

 



#7 another 505 sailor

another 505 sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,638 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:18 AM

A few years ago I did race committee with a guy in his early twenties, who was recently laid off. He was cruising through the company's server and found an employee compensation spreadsheet. He didn't think it was fair that some people earned more than others, so he emailed it to everyone. He did not understand why he was fired.
Some people just cannot be trusted with sensitive information. Too bad Snowden wasn't vetted better.

#8 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:35 AM

He blew a whistle, but it's a damn tricky game to ref. Imagine Joey Crawford's first game....    



#9 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,776 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:12 AM

I view him as a naif. A computer programmer looking at that stuff is kind of like a pig looking at a wrist watch. He never should have been given access, and if that was unavoidable, he should have been closely supervised. I'm believe he thinks he saw something strange and was spooked by it. 

 

 What appears to most people as abuses was SOP. It's necessary to understand how those SOP's came into being and exactly how they were being handled in order to judge them. 

 

"Intelligence gathering" (i.e. spying and subterfuge) should be conducted in such a way that your average naif should have a reasonable understanding of why it's necessary. Gathering intel on North Korea? Check. Deposing a democratically-elected leader of a free country? Urp.

 

If the wristwatch can't be understood by a pig then it shouldn't be built in the first place.



#10 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 November 2013 - 05:40 AM

Jon Stewart did a great bit the other night about how Congress had fully authorized the NSA to perform all the tasks of spying that they are now all screaming their heads off about, including spying on our Eurpean allies.

 

 Did he mention the stuff about every intell insider we have swearing they spy on us too? They do, and will continue to do so. The rank, phony hypocrisy of this outrage the French and German leadership are displaying will be revealed.  

 

 The SIGINT games will continue too. Nobody is going to abandon this field and blind themselves. That there will be more people aware of it is a good thing, but I don't think Snowden would have knowingly traded his freedom for this.  

 

 

 

 

I don't have any issue with us spying on Merkel's cell phone calls.  We do it, they do it.  Nothing shocking. 

 

What I have a serious issue with is the NSA sucking up and monitoring ALL of the emails, phone calls, etc. of US citizens.  Whether or not they are actually reading every email is irrelevant.  Doing this has a chilling effect on speech and privacy.

 

We all are now joking (sort of) about what we now write on the forums and what we send our friends and families in emails.  But its an uneasy joke, because we know its actually true.  And its chilling.  There is a psychological, if not tangible, effect on our actions, our speech, how we conduct our daily life.  It is not Big Brother yet..... but we are headed that way and frankly I am not comfortable with it.

 

I'm still contorted when it comes to Snowden himself......  On one hand, he violated his oath and his security clearance.  If he wanted to be a true whistleblower - he should have stood and faced the consequences.  It would have turned out poorly for him - of that I have no doubt.  BUt it would have been the right thing to do if he felt that strongly about it.  Running off to China and then Russia to me seemed cowardly. 

 

OTOH, we would not be having this conversation without him.  An for that, I am grateful and this conversation needed to happen at some point.  The public doesn't need to know everything that goes on.... but I think we have taken this security state thing a bit too far.  I, for one, have no desire to live in a police state as my home country.... even a benign one.  I live in one currently, and it is truly benign in the sense that it is not apparent on the surface in everyday life.  But anyone who doesn't think that emails and texts and phone calls are being ACTIVELY monitored and read over here are fools.  I accept it because I'm a guest in another country...... But I DO NOT accept that in my own country.  We are better than this.  We do not need to hide from our own shadows.  Yes, there are threats to our country out there - but I think we can still deal with them while not becoming a police state in the process



#11 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 06:32 AM

I view him as a naif. A computer programmer looking at that stuff is kind of like a pig looking at a wrist watch. He never should have been given access, and if that was unavoidable, he should have been closely supervised. I'm believe he thinks he saw something strange and was spooked by it. 

 

 What appears to most people as abuses was SOP. It's necessary to understand how those SOP's came into being and exactly how they were being handled in order to judge them. 

 

"Intelligence gathering" (i.e. spying and subterfuge) should be conducted in such a way that your average naif should have a reasonable understanding of why it's necessary. Gathering intel on North Korea? Check. Deposing a democratically-elected leader of a free country? Urp.

 

If the wristwatch can't be understood by a pig then it shouldn't be built in the first place.

 "If the wristwatch can't be understood by a pig then it shouldn't be built in the first place."  An example of the pervasive adolescent self-importance that causes them to believe they must treat us like children. Can't even understand why it's necessary and normal between different nations. "We want total transparency in our international espionage and SIGINT because I don't understand it!!"  
 

Collectively, we have the mind of a five year old child and he was glad to be rid of it. 



#12 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 07:01 AM

 

Jon Stewart did a great bit the other night about how Congress had fully authorized the NSA to perform all the tasks of spying that they are now all screaming their heads off about, including spying on our Eurpean allies.

 

 Did he mention the stuff about every intell insider we have swearing they spy on us too? They do, and will continue to do so. The rank, phony hypocrisy of this outrage the French and German leadership are displaying will be revealed.  

 

 The SIGINT games will continue too. Nobody is going to abandon this field and blind themselves. That there will be more people aware of it is a good thing, but I don't think Snowden would have knowingly traded his freedom for this.  

 

 

 

 

I don't have any issue with us spying on Merkel's cell phone calls.  We do it, they do it.  Nothing shocking. 

 

What I have a serious issue with is the NSA sucking up and monitoring ALL of the emails, phone calls, etc. of US citizens.  Whether or not they are actually reading every email is irrelevant.  Doing this has a chilling effect on speech and privacy.

 

We all are now joking (sort of) about what we now write on the forums and what we send our friends and families in emails.  But its an uneasy joke, because we know its actually true.  And its chilling.  There is a psychological, if not tangible, effect on our actions, our speech, how we conduct our daily life.  It is not Big Brother yet..... but we are headed that way and frankly I am not comfortable with it.

 

I'm still contorted when it comes to Snowden himself......  On one hand, he violated his oath and his security clearance.  If he wanted to be a true whistleblower - he should have stood and faced the consequences.  It would have turned out poorly for him - of that I have no doubt.  BUt it would have been the right thing to do if he felt that strongly about it.  Running off to China and then Russia to me seemed cowardly. 

 

OTOH, we would not be having this conversation without him.  An for that, I am grateful and this conversation needed to happen at some point.  The public doesn't need to know everything that goes on.... but I think we have taken this security state thing a bit too far.  I, for one, have no desire to live in a police state as my home country.... even a benign one.  I live in one currently, and it is truly benign in the sense that it is not apparent on the surface in everyday life.  But anyone who doesn't think that emails and texts and phone calls are being ACTIVELY monitored and read over here are fools.  I accept it because I'm a guest in another country...... But I DO NOT accept that in my own country.  We are better than this.  We do not need to hide from our own shadows.  Yes, there are threats to our country out there - but I think we can still deal with them while not becoming a police state in the process

 

 

 It would be one thing if Greenwald was just distributing things about domestic spying, but this international stuff crosses the line.

 

I don't think Snowden has any control of that anymore though. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out Greenwald has to release stuff just to keep Snowdens situation in Russia comfortable. They will want it all. 



#13 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

I'm still contorted when it comes to Snowden himself......  On one hand, he violated his oath and his security clearance.  If he wanted to be a true whistleblower - he should have stood and faced the consequences.  It would have turned out poorly for him - of that I have no doubt.  BUt it would have been the right thing to do if he felt that strongly about it.  Running off to China and then Russia to me seemed cowardly.

 


Stood where? And who would have heard his whistle?

 

Have you noticed how our government treats whistleblowers? The Fast and Furious whistleblowers tried to stop that insane program through internal channels and were shut down, so they went to reporters. Reporting on what they said was not a crime. Reporting on what Snowden said would be.

 

So he needed to find a reporter who wanted to commit the same crime, knowing that "it would turn out poorly."

 

The only way he could do what he did was to stay beyond the reach of our government. That's why lots of people wanted him to find some other way. There was no other way, so that position defaults to "continue trusting the security state."



#14 opa1

opa1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Location:Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
  • Interests:Golf, Sailing

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:15 PM

I've ask this question before, and I will ask it again.  Can anyone name one U.S. citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs?  Just one will do.  Criminals and terrorists do not apply.  And I consider Snowden an indicted criminal.  How about a European citizen?  Can anyone name one European citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs. 



#15 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:19 PM

OK, I'll name one: me.

 

I've sent emails.

 

They intercepted them without a warrant.

 

But there are millions like me, so let's not make it all about me.

 

As for Europeans, the NSA is supposed to spy on foreigners. No warrant required.



#16 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:38 PM

I've ask this question before, and I will ask it again.  Can anyone name one U.S. citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs?  Just one will do.  Criminals and terrorists do not apply.  And I consider Snowden an indicted criminal.  How about a European citizen?  Can anyone name one European citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs. 

 

How would we know lacking any investigation at all? and why wouldn't criminals and terrorists apply? We have certain unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution those rules are applicable to everyone, innocent until found guilty in a court of law.



#17 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:44 PM

Just this morning as reported in the Guardian:

 

(Reuters) - Spy agencies across Western Europe are working together on mass surveillance of Internet and phone traffic comparable to programs run by their U.S. counterpart denounced by European governments, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Saturday.  http://www.reuters.c...E9A103K20131102

 

Wow, just a week ago they were screaming bloody murder over the NSA spying amongst them. Today, it's revealed they are all over their own Continent.



#18 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,222 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 02 November 2013 - 06:36 PM

I don't have any issue with us spying on Merkel's cell phone calls.  We do it, they do it.  Nothing shocking. 

 

What I have a serious issue with is the NSA sucking up and monitoring ALL of the emails, phone calls, etc. of US citizens.  Whether or not they are actually reading every email is irrelevant.  Doing this has a chilling effect on speech and privacy.

 

We all are now joking (sort of) about what we now write on the forums and what we send our friends and families in emails.  But its an uneasy joke, because we know its actually true.  And its chilling.  There is a psychological, if not tangible, effect on our actions, our speech, how we conduct our daily life.  It is not Big Brother yet..... but we are headed that way and frankly I am not comfortable with it.

 

I'm still contorted when it comes to Snowden himself......  On one hand, he violated his oath and his security clearance.  If he wanted to be a true whistleblower - he should have stood and faced the consequences.  It would have turned out poorly for him - of that I have no doubt.  BUt it would have been the right thing to do if he felt that strongly about it.  Running off to China and then Russia to me seemed cowardly. 

 

OTOH, we would not be having this conversation without him.  An for that, I am grateful and this conversation needed to happen at some point.  The public doesn't need to know everything that goes on.... but I think we have taken this security state thing a bit too far.  I, for one, have no desire to live in a police state as my home country.... even a benign one.  I live in one currently, and it is truly benign in the sense that it is not apparent on the surface in everyday life.  But anyone who doesn't think that emails and texts and phone calls are being ACTIVELY monitored and read over here are fools.  I accept it because I'm a guest in another country...... But I DO NOT accept that in my own country.  We are better than this.  We do not need to hide from our own shadows.  Yes, there are threats to our country out there - but I think we can still deal with them while not becoming a police state in the process

 

This post is beautifully written, and speaks for me.



#19 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,912 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 02 November 2013 - 06:52 PM

I've ask this question before, and I will ask it again.  Can anyone name one U.S. citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs?  Just one will do.  Criminals and terrorists do not apply.  And I consider Snowden an indicted criminal.  How about a European citizen?  Can anyone name one European citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs. 

 

 

If you've committed no crime you have nothing to fear, right?

 

Many people's 4th amendment rights have been abrogated - does that count for harm?  Is it harm if the government breaks into your house and searches it just for the hell of it to see if you are doing anything wrong?

 

I tend to think so, I do not wish to live in a police state.



#20 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:22 PM

I've ask this question before, and I will ask it again.  Can anyone name one U.S. citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs?  Just one will do.  Criminals and terrorists do not apply.  And I consider Snowden an indicted criminal.  How about a European citizen?  Can anyone name one European citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs. 

 

 

If you've committed no crime you have nothing to fear, right?

 

Many people's 4th amendment rights have been abrogated - does that count for harm?  Is it harm if the government breaks into your house and searches it just for the hell of it to see if you are doing anything wrong?

 

I tend to think so, I do not wish to live in a police state.

 

   If they had been doing that  Snowden wouldn't have had to flee. He exposed the capability, but it appears all the collection that was going on was legal. The restrictions on ability to view the saved data imposed by FISA were being followed. Snowden provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. 

 

 Since no other nation has such restrictions, or anything like a FISA court, are they all "police states"?  I don't think so. 



#21 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:09 PM

The legal point as to whether or not what they were doing is legal is being challenged by both the ACLU and Judicial Watch. Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires that the government provide proof of a terrorism investigation or demonstrate what they are gathering relates to foreign intelligence. I won't even bring up the fact that the NSA is restricted to operations outside the borders of the United States or that the Patriot Act hasn't been tested against other Constitutional guarantees such as Freedom of speech, Unlawful search and seizure, Freedom of association or due process.

The spying on American citizens has gone on for a dozen years, we frankly don't know squat about what they have done, the facts known only by a small handful of individuals like Dianne Feinstein, whom I trust about as much as a tax collector. I wish Snowden had stayed to explain himself, I understand why he didn't and that Obama has waged war on whistleblowers. More evidence is coming out, I wish they would just dump it instead of waiting for the advantage of a full effect, but whatever.



#22 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:22 AM

OK, I'll name one: me.

 

I've sent emails.

 

They intercepted them without a warrant.

 

But there are millions like me, so let's not make it all about me.

 

As for Europeans, the NSA is supposed to spy on foreigners. No warrant required.

 

This^^.  Exactly!



#23 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:24 AM

I've ask this question before, and I will ask it again.  Can anyone name one U.S. citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs?  Just one will do.  Criminals and terrorists do not apply.  And I consider Snowden an indicted criminal.  How about a European citizen?  Can anyone name one European citizen that was harmed by the NSA programs. 

 

So, you would have no problems with the police searching your home and reading your diary or personal papers and browsing your computers without a warrant, right?

 

I didn't think so.......



#24 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:14 AM

If you've done nothing wrong what's the problem? :P



#25 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:37 AM


 

  ... He exposed the capability, but it appears all the collection that was going on was legal. The restrictions on ability to view the saved data imposed by FISA were being followed. Snowden provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. 

...

 


We know the restrictions have not always been followed. The NSA admits they broke the rules thousands of times per year.

 

updated_2_NSA_breaches16_606.jpg

 

 

We also know that they don't always admit what they are doing to their FISA overseers.

 

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

All the collection that was going on was legal? It was only legal under the "this'll be OK and we'll tell the judges about it later" theory of constitutional law, and only until the judges were informed of what had been going on.



#26 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,757 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:59 AM

OK, I'll name one: me.

 

I've sent emails.

 

They intercepted them without a warrant.

 

But there are millions like me, so let's not make it all about me.

 

As for Europeans, the NSA is supposed to spy on foreigners. No warrant required.

 

Yup.  As banal as my life is, they are my employees and claim they can dig in my sandbox but not play in theirs!

For security....

 

When a govt. fears the People, things never end well.



#27 soak_ed

soak_ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,893 posts
  • Location:Poland

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

NSA does what they do because they can.  As computers become more and more powerful it is easier and easier to do this kind of shit.  It is too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  



#28 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 06:55 PM

After the release of the MUSCULAR details, I'm of the firm opinion that Snowden is an asset to the American people and not a traitor. There is no doubt that our government is collecting, storing, and sorting every single phone call, text, email, video, and image we transmit. That is unacceptable to me. I loathed the GW Bush administration. This administration is doing it's best to make the W years look glorious.

 

Spare me the "everybody does it" and "it's too late" bullshit. Complacency is what has allowed this to occur. Complacency is what will allow it to get worse. If we as a nation don't get control of these abuses, the militia nutters are going to look like fucking prophets.



#29 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:50 PM

The legal point as to whether or not what they were doing is legal is being challenged by both the ACLU and Judicial Watch. Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires that the government provide proof of a terrorism investigation or demonstrate what they are gathering relates to foreign intelligence. I won't even bring up the fact that the NSA is restricted to operations outside the borders of the United States or that the Patriot Act hasn't been tested against other Constitutional guarantees such as Freedom of speech, Unlawful search and seizure, Freedom of association or due process.

The spying on American citizens has gone on for a dozen years, we frankly don't know squat about what they have done, the facts known only by a small handful of individuals like Dianne Feinstein, whom I trust about as much as a tax collector. I wish Snowden had stayed to explain himself, I understand why he didn't and that Obama has waged war on whistleblowers. More evidence is coming out, I wish they would just dump it instead of waiting for the advantage of a full effect, but whatever.

 

  Well, when it is made illegal, then he has a shot at "whistleblower" legal status. I don't think he should wait for that though. 

 

 He has a card to play.  All our spooks are embarrassed by having to admit they have no way to assess what he got. Seems the SysAdmin could and did cover his electronic tracks.  His recent plea for the charges to be dropped indicates he isn't very happy in Russia. Maybe he's figured out that the decision to go through Moscow without papers and (amazingly!) being detained wasn't an accident. The smiling faces and their questions they ask must by now be making him nervous.

 

 It's possible he can swing an immunity deal IF he has the ability to get Glenn to STFU, and Glenn can prove he hasn't spread it to hell and gone already, and has control of the stolen information.  He stands a chance of getting some kinda deal if he can provide a list of what he gave Glenn too, although it's unlikely that would be total immunity, they would really...really...love to have that. 

 

 

 

 

 

  



#30 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:57 PM

Not a chance for immunity. Dan Pfeiffer, Assistant to the President was on "This Week" today and stated that immunity was discussed. "He -  look,  Mr Snowden violated U.S. law....Our belief is that he should return to the United States and face justice." At this point it may be in Snowdens best interest to get all of the info out there and hope the public gets angry enough ahead of his return home blunting the feds desire that he will be eviscerated by the inevitable spin machine.



#31 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:06 PM

Bad Lat advocates for more damage to US Intel.
How typical.

#32 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:10 PM

The true patriot is the one who advocates for the protection of Constitution rights against government intrusion. The babbling fool who wants the government to own the people is the true danger to the people and to himself.



#33 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:42 PM

The true patriot does not want sensitive information released by someone with a personal vendetta, information which will lead to compromised human intelligence and possible personal harm.
As far as babbling fools go, you'll have to explain.

#34 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:58 PM

I really don't want to argue with you WC since it is abundantly apparent you don't have the slightest idea what a being patriot entails. If you know of anyone personally harmed by Snowden's release of intelligence I would like to know who that is. Don't insult our intelligence by a curt answer such as "the American people" I truly hope you aren't that base.



#35 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:12 PM

The true patriot does not want sensitive information released by someone with a personal vendetta...

 


What personal vendetta would that be?



#36 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:28 PM

The true patriot does not want sensitive information released by someone with a personal vendetta...

 

What personal vendetta would that be?
Snowdens motivation I do not know.

I really don't want to argue with you WC since it is abundantly apparent you don't have the slightest idea what a being patriot entails. If you know of anyone personally harmed by Snowden's release of intelligence I would like to know who that is. Don't insult our intelligence by a curt answer such as "the American people" I truly hope you aren't that base.


Is Snowden a Patriot?

#37 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:31 PM

 

The true patriot does not want sensitive information released by someone with a personal vendetta...

 

What personal vendetta would that be?
Snowdens motivation I do not know.
...

 

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 


His motivation appears to me to have been patriotism, so yes, and that's a good "vendetta" in my opinion.



#38 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:44 PM

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 

The Constitution is about creating a government to best preserve the rights of its citizens, an individual devoted to protecting those rights would be a true patriot.



#39 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:50 PM

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 
The Constitution is about creating a government to best preserve the rights of its citizens, an individual devoted to protecting those rights would be a true patriot.
Is Snowden a Patriot?

#40 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:56 PM

 

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 
The Constitution is about creating a government to best preserve the rights of its citizens, an individual devoted to protecting those rights would be a true patriot.
Is Snowden a Patriot?

In my opinion, Yes.



#41 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 10:59 PM

 

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 
The Constitution is about creating a government to best preserve the rights of its citizens, an individual devoted to protecting those rights would be a true patriot.
Is Snowden a Patriot?

It goes without saying. Snowden is absolutely a patriot.



#42 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:37 AM

It may be his only regret is only having but one defection to give to his country, but if he would have hung around and backed some of his assertions they might not have been as badly discredited in the Congressional hearings. Hell, if he had even given Greenwald better evidence...

 

Just sayin'



#43 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:20 AM

The only thing I saw discredited in any hearings was the reputation of previously trusted politicians who revealed themselves as untrustworthy and duplicitous. I wish Snowden had the balls to come back look them in the eye and bring about their early retirement from our political discourse.



#44 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:30 AM

"This interesting fish has swum into our nets of its own accord and it would be unthinkable of our special services to miss this rare chance to talk to a US defector," said Alexei Kondaurov, a retired general of the Soviet-era intelligence service." 

http://articles.lati...-value-20130625

 

149cfbt.jpg



#45 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,173 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:42 AM

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.



#46 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:44 AM

I'd rather live in Russia it's very close to s western culture



#47 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:15 AM

"This interesting fish has swum into our nets of its own accord and it would be unthinkable of our special services to miss this rare chance to talk to a US defector," said Alexei Kondaurov, a retired general of the Soviet-era intelligence service." 

http://articles.lati...-value-20130625

 

149cfbt.jpg


Well it's been nearly six months and the Russians seem to be behaving themselves. Hopefully, they've divorced themselves from cold war tactics but you never know with Putin.



#48 2slow

2slow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,246 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:22 AM

 

 

Is Snowden a Patriot?

 
The Constitution is about creating a government to best preserve the rights of its citizens, an individual devoted to protecting those rights would be a true patriot.
Is Snowden a Patriot?

It goes without saying. Snowden is absolutely a patriot.

defended the constitution and his oath to protect it, patriot



#49 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,173 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:42 AM

defended the constitution and his oath to protect it, patriot

 

His oath would have been something like:

 

I, Edward Snowden, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.



#50 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 05:26 AM

  Well, when it is made illegal, then he has a shot at "whistleblower" legal status. I don't think he should wait for that though. 

 

Mark, this is where it gets really grey.  Yes, the FISA court has said what the NSA is/was doing is technically legal.  However, the NSA itself has admitted it violated the scope of the FISA warrants "thousands" of times.  So those "ooops" are clearly not legal.  And I find it unlikely that all (or even the majority) were "ooopsies". 

 

The other really grey area in all this is the perversion of the FISA court where there is no counter-argument given from an objective outsider to look after our privacy rights.  There is a token appointee to do that now, IIRC.  But I don't think that is enough.  I honestly don't believe these broad fishing expeditions would survive legal scrutiny if it was challenged in a proper court. 


Again - the HARM to the American people is the chilling effect this has had and will continue to have on speech.  That is more sacred to me than protecting the lives of a few dozen (or even a few thousand) that we might lose in the event of another terrorist attack by NOT sucking up every email, text, phone call, etc. of our citizens. 



#51 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:27 AM

  Well, when it is made illegal, then he has a shot at "whistleblower" legal status. I don't think he should wait for that though. 

 

Mark, this is where it gets really grey.  Yes, the FISA court has said what the NSA is/was doing is technically legal.  However, the NSA itself has admitted it violated the scope of the FISA warrants "thousands" of times.  So those "ooops" are clearly not legal.  And I find it unlikely that all (or even the majority) were "ooopsies". 

 

The other really grey area in all this is the perversion of the FISA court where there is no counter-argument given from an objective outsider to look after our privacy rights.  There is a token appointee to do that now, IIRC.  But I don't think that is enough.  I honestly don't believe these broad fishing expeditions would survive legal scrutiny if it was challenged in a proper court. 


Again - the HARM to the American people is the chilling effect this has had and will continue to have on speech.  That is more sacred to me than protecting the lives of a few dozen (or even a few thousand) that we might lose in the event of another terrorist attack by NOT sucking up every email, text, phone call, etc. of our citizens. 

 

  If I thought that is what they were doing I'd be against it too. 

 

  The system described under oath from multiple people in the hearings? I'm stumped to think of a better way. Definitely open to something better, just haven't figured one out. 



#52 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:31 AM

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 



#53 Eric

Eric

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts
  • Location:Orcas Island, WA

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:38 AM

A few years ago I did race committee with a guy in his early twenties, who was recently laid off. He was cruising through the company's server and found an employee compensation spreadsheet. He didn't think it was fair that some people earned more than others, so he emailed it to everyone. He did not understand why he was fired.
Some people just cannot be trusted with sensitive information. Too bad Snowden wasn't vetted better.

 

20 years ago I was a VP at a company that had recently installed a Novell "computer network". The printers were on the network. One Friday afternoon I printed the engineering department's salary increase and salaries. Well, the document never printed and then everyone was going to Newmans for drinks so I kind of forgot about it. It turns out that the network cable had been unplugged for some reason and when the techs got to fixing it eventually the document printed -- on Saturday morning. Some asshole picked it up and needless to say it got around. Big problem for me.



#54 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:42 AM

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

That perhaps.  But I think even more so is the notion that the Russians are a bit more like us, have similar values, and most importantly play by a similar set of rules when it comes to the spycraft trade.  There was a lot of mututal respect between the CIA and KGB during the cold war, despite being mortal enemies.  There were rules of the game and they were mostly followed by both sides.

 

The Chinese..... not so much.  Completely different society and values.  I'm sure Snowden felt he couldn't trust the chinese as far as he could spit chow mein noodles.  And with very good reason. 



#55 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

 

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

That perhaps.  But I think even more so is the notion that the Russians are a bit more like us, have similar values, and most importantly play by a similar set of rules when it comes to the spycraft trade.  There was a lot of mututal respect between the CIA and KGB during the cold war, despite being mortal enemies.  There were rules of the game and they were mostly followed by both sides.

 

The Chinese..... not so much.  Completely different society and values.  I'm sure Snowden felt he couldn't trust the chinese as far as he could spit chow mein noodles.  And with very good reason. 

 

   I think the Chinese just wished to be rid of him. The goofy-ness of that Moscow airport waiting room situation indicates somebody had to made a quick decision. 

  



#56 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:52 AM

I'd rather live in Russia


You could keep Snowden company.

#57 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,857 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 11:19 AM


I'd rather live in Russia

You could keep Snowden company.
I'm in, how much do we need to donate to buy Gatey a one way ticket?

#58 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,716 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:21 PM

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

 

The way I heard it:

 

when you owe them a billion, they own you.  when you them a trllion, you own them......



#59 White Cracker

White Cracker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,296 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:28 PM

 

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

 

The way I heard it:

 

when you owe them a billion, they own you.  when you them a trllion, you own them......

So should we make it ten trillion? 

That would be ten times better than one trillion, by your measure.



#60 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:41 PM

The argument of legal vs illegal is superseded by what is wright and wrong. It is wrong for the govt to spy on it's own citizens when there is no evidence they have done anything wrong, and that is exactly what is happening. I do not care if there is someone paid by the govt who is willing to say that it is legal, I do not care if it is technically legal, I do not care if it is technically constitutional, it is still morally wrong and prohibits the proper functioning of a representative democracy. It was wrong when GWB did it, and it is just as wrong when Obama does it. Just as many who argue against this now defended it when GWB did it, I would caution that many who defend it now would be awfully upset about it if we had a President Rick Perry or a President Ted Cruz. We should limit the govt to powers that we feel comfortable entrusting to people we don't like, since that is what we are going to get a good deal of the time.



#61 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:54 PM

 

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

 

The way I heard it:

 

when you owe them a billion, they own you.  when you them a trllion, you own them......

 

So how's that 16 hours a day job going for you then? That's a full shift for somebody else you're getting penalty rates for.



#62 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,716 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:22 PM

 

 

I've never understood why the Russians and not the Chinese.

 

 Makes things difficult for Walmart, the Chinese people would chide them for the hypocrisy, and when you borrow a billion you have a creditor, but when you borrow a trillion you have a partner. 

 

 

The way I heard it:

 

when you owe them a billion, they own you.  when you them a trllion, you own them......

 

So how's that 16 hours a day job going for you then? That's a full shift for somebody else you're getting penalty rates for.

 

Not going bad at all.  2nd shift is reading my book and playing on here for 8 hours in a slow tool crib with maybe 4 customers all night for time and a half.  But only 4-5 hours of sleep gets old after 3 days in a row.  Slept in Saturday til 9. I'd work for 16 hours a day, 8 days a week if they'd let me.  At least until the house sells.....  Unlike the fucknuts on Wall Street, I am not too big to fail, and have to repay my debts...

 

EDIT:  So, who's sock drawer did you fall out of Sneezy?



#63 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:54 PM

That's another unemployed person's job in your OT.

 

I respect your willingness to work hard & get ahead but you should share those extra hours for people in need.

 

I'll let you figure out what sock drawer I'm from while you mooch the OT. Time's on your side.



#64 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,716 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:01 PM

Okay Grumpster, nobody else wants this overtime.......  So I will take as much as I can get.  Probably work 16 hours Christmas and new years eves; no problem...  And I am not getting ahead, just going backwards a little slower...



#65 SNEEZY

SNEEZY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:28 PM

Okay Grumpster, nobody else wants this overtime.......  So I will take as much as I can get.  Probably work 16 hours Christmas and new years eves; no problem...  And I am not getting ahead, just going backwards a little slower...

Nobody else? C'mon Billy. There's people unemployed all over.

 

Your OT is a full shift for an unemployed person.

 

I laud your willingness to do that OT and reward my folks that are willing accordingly.

 

I think you're reading me wrong.



#66 Centurion

Centurion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:36 PM

If you've done nothing wrong what's the problem? :P

 

If they have a legal right to search where is the warrant?



#67 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,716 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:00 PM

Okay Grumpster, nobody else wants this overtime.......  So I will take as much as I can get.  Probably work 16 hours Christmas and new years eves; no problem...  And I am not getting ahead, just going backwards a little slower...

Nobody else? C'mon Billy. There's people unemployed all over.

 

Your OT is a full shift for an unemployed person.

 

I laud your willingness to do that OT and reward my folks that are willing accordingly.

 

I think you're reading me wrong.

 

Dude; I don't do the hiring here. Just a lowly tool crib attendant who only got the job cuz a friend sells cutting tools to the supplier subcontractor of a jet engine manufacturing plant.



#68 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,387 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, Snowden is a traitor.

 

In my humble opinion.



#69 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:49 PM

The argument of legal vs illegal is superseded by what is wright and wrong. It is wrong for the govt to spy on it's own citizens when there is no evidence they have done anything wrong, and that is exactly what is happening. I do not care if there is someone paid by the govt who is willing to say that it is legal, I do not care if it is technically legal, I do not care if it is technically constitutional, it is still morally wrong and prohibits the proper functioning of a representative democracy. It was wrong when GWB did it, and it is just as wrong when Obama does it. Just as many who argue against this now defended it when GWB did it, I would caution that many who defend it now would be awfully upset about it if we had a President Rick Perry or a President Ted Cruz. We should limit the govt to powers that we feel comfortable entrusting to people we don't like, since that is what we are going to get a good deal of the time.

 

Eric Schmidt appeared in the Wall Street Journal today:

 

GOOGLE'S ERIC SCHMIDT SLAMS NSA - WSJ's Deborah Kan in Hong Kong: "Schmidt bristled at reports that the U.S. government ... spied on the company's data centers, [calling it] ... potentially illegal ... 'It's really outrageous that the National Security Agency was looking between the Google data centers, if that's true. The steps that the organization was willing to do without good judgment to pursue its mission and potentially violate people's privacy, it's not OK,' Mr. Schmidt [said] in an interview ... Schmidt said Google ... registered complaints with ... NSA, ... Obama and members of Congress. 'The National Security Agency allegedly collected the phone records of every phone call of 320 million people in order to identify roughly 300 people who might be a risk. That's just bad public policy...and perhaps illegal ... There clearly are cases where evil people exist, but you don't have to violate the privacy of every single citizen of America to find them.'" http://goo.gl/fG4wRt



#70 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,525 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:01 PM


The argument of legal vs illegal is superseded by what is wright and wrong. It is wrong for the govt to spy on it's own citizens when there is no evidence they have done anything wrong, and that is exactly what is happening. I do not care if there is someone paid by the govt who is willing to say that it is legal, I do not care if it is technically legal, I do not care if it is technically constitutional, it is still morally wrong and prohibits the proper functioning of a representative democracy. It was wrong when GWB did it, and it is just as wrong when Obama does it. Just as many who argue against this now defended it when GWB did it, I would caution that many who defend it now would be awfully upset about it if we had a President Rick Perry or a President Ted Cruz. We should limit the govt to powers that we feel comfortable entrusting to people we don't like, since that is what we are going to get a good deal of the time.

 

Eric Schmidt appeared in the Wall Street Journal today:

 


>GOOGLE'S ERIC SCHMIDT SLAMS NSA - WSJ's Deborah Kan in Hong Kong: "Schmidt bristled at reports that the U.S. government ... spied on the company's data centers, [calling it] ... potentially illegal ... 'It's really outrageous that the National Security Agency was looking between the Google data centers, if that's true. The steps that the organization was willing to do without good judgment to pursue its mission and potentially violate people's privacy, it's not OK,' Mr. Schmidt [said] in an interview ... Schmidt said Google ... registered complaints with ... NSA, ... Obama and members of Congress. 'The National Security Agency allegedly collected the phone records of every phone call of 320 million people in order to identify roughly 300 people who might be a risk. That's just bad public policy...and perhaps illegal ... There clearly are cases where evil people exist, but you don't have to violate the privacy of every single citizen of America to find them.'" http://goo.gl/fG4wRt

 

So it's ok for Google to sift and mine one's data but not ok for NSA et al to sift and mine Google's data?

 

HMMMMM



#71 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:50 PM

Sorry, Snowden is a traitor.

 

In my humble opinion.

 

  Should he be in the same category as Aldrich Ames and Jon Pollard? Walker?  

 

 I think he is closer to a toddler that wrapped himself in bacon and waded into the shark tank than that. We toss tons of money at our spooks on the notion that more is better, but that isn't necessarily so.  



#72 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:03 AM

 

  Well, when it is made illegal, then he has a shot at "whistleblower" legal status. I don't think he should wait for that though. 

 

Mark, this is where it gets really grey.  Yes, the FISA court has said what the NSA is/was doing is technically legal.  However, the NSA itself has admitted it violated the scope of the FISA warrants "thousands" of times.  So those "ooops" are clearly not legal.  And I find it unlikely that all (or even the majority) were "ooopsies". 

 

The other really grey area in all this is the perversion of the FISA court where there is no counter-argument given from an objective outsider to look after our privacy rights.  There is a token appointee to do that now, IIRC.  But I don't think that is enough.  I honestly don't believe these broad fishing expeditions would survive legal scrutiny if it was challenged in a proper court. 


Again - the HARM to the American people is the chilling effect this has had and will continue to have on speech.  That is more sacred to me than protecting the lives of a few dozen (or even a few thousand) that we might lose in the event of another terrorist attack by NOT sucking up every email, text, phone call, etc. of our citizens. 

 

  If I thought that is what they were doing I'd be against it too. 

 

  The system described under oath from multiple people in the hearings? I'm stumped to think of a better way. Definitely open to something better, just haven't figured one out. 

Did you miss the details on MUSCULAR? They ARE sucking up every email, text, phone call, etc.. You really think the data collection stops with  the latest leak by Snowden? You really think MUSCULAR is the ONLY program involved with warrantless surveillance of private American data?

 

One of my coworkers is a bit on the nutter side and has long been claiming that our emails and anything we transmit digitally is being collected by the gov. We routinely poked fun at him for this. One of the other engineers apologized to him on Friday. Our government is proving the nutters right. We've allowed it to happen. It's time to quit making excuses and start demanding this come to an end. Shredding our rights based on fear and paranoia isn't making us safer. It is making us less safe by giving credence to extremists of all sorts and justifying their beliefs. The paranoid and delusional, who are looking like Nostradamus right now, are a far bigger worry to us than Islamic extremists on the other side of the Earth. We aren't just giving up our rights, we're pushing more and more people to a dangerous fringe.



#73 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:07 AM

Yes, I missed the details on MUSCULAR. What is it? 



#74 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 01:16 AM

Yes, I missed the details on MUSCULAR. What is it? 

Are you joking? Seriously?

 

http://www.washingto...a4dd_story.html



#75 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:01 AM

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 

 

 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 



#76 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:07 AM

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 

 

 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?



#77 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:09 AM

Explain how this is a "maybe", Mark:

 

According to a top-secret accounting dated Jan. 9, 2013, the NSA’s acquisitions directorate sends millions of records every day from internal Yahoo and Google networks to data warehouses at the agency’s headquarters at Fort Meade, Md. In the preceding 30 days, the report said, field collectors had processed and sent back 181,280,466 new records — including “metadata,” which would indicate who sent or received e-mails and when, as well as content such as text, audio and video.



#78 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:22 AM

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 
 
 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?

It doesn't stop with them. I have been saying the same thing for well over a year before snowden leaked anything. No tinfoil hat needed when you know enough of the network engineers. Word gets around.

#79 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:34 AM

 

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 
 
 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?

It doesn't stop with them. I have been saying the same thing for well over a year before snowden leaked anything. No tinfoil hat needed when you know enough of the network engineers. Word gets around.

 

  That's kinda my point, it's been known to anyone who understood the laws put in place after 9/11 that this is being done. Legally. Under warrants from the FISA (for international) or other courts for domestic stuff. 



#80 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:12 AM

 

 

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 
 
 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?

It doesn't stop with them. I have been saying the same thing for well over a year before snowden leaked anything. No tinfoil hat needed when you know enough of the network engineers. Word gets around.

 

  That's kinda my point, it's been known to anyone who understood the laws put in place after 9/11 that this is being done. Legally. Under warrants from the FISA (for international) or other courts for domestic stuff. 

 

The problem is I don't see how a warrant for this kind of broad, non-specific domestic spying would be valid if actually challenged.  Warrants are supposed to be for specific circumstances with narrow objectives and there has to be probable cause by the specific person.

 

Would a search warrant for the entire city of Boise, ID just "in case" there might be some criminal activity going on there pass muster?  I doubt it.  Would a phone wiretap warrant for every house in the suburb of Pasadena if LE thought there might be some illegal gang activity happening somewhere?  I don't think so. 

 

You can't have a valid warrant that says the NSA can suck up every email, every text, every phone call, etc in the US.  Just because a warrant such as that might "exist" doesn't make it valid or legal. 

 

I could give two shits what they do overseas.  I have very little problem with listening in on Angela's phone sex - other than poor judgment.  But domestic spying is a whole nother can O worms.  You'd better have a really good and really specific reason to read my emails.



#81 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 05 November 2013 - 10:45 AM

 

 

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 
 
 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?

It doesn't stop with them. I have been saying the same thing for well over a year before snowden leaked anything. No tinfoil hat needed when you know enough of the network engineers. Word gets around.

 

  That's kinda my point, it's been known to anyone who understood the laws put in place after 9/11 that this is being done. Legally. Under warrants from the FISA (for international) or other courts for domestic stuff. 

 

Understanding that it is happening does not mean we have to approve, nor that we have to agree it should be "legal" (at least to the extent their activities have not already been declared unconstitutional.)
 



#82 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,757 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 05 November 2013 - 12:37 PM

...
One of my coworkers is a bit on the nutter side and has long been claiming that our emails and anything we transmit digitally is being collected by the gov. We routinely poked fun at him for this. One of the other engineers apologized to him on Friday. ...

 

As a certified nutter, let me say that this is the service to our society that Snowden has performed and why he's a hero, not a traitor.
 
Now that non-nutters are aware of what has been happening, more and larger media outlets are covering what is happening.

 

...
Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent.

 

There is a "who watches the watchers" problem.

 

The process doesn't seem to have been effective in LAX. Does an ability to combat terrorists and criminals really depend on gathering vast swaths of data, just in case it may be needed? That capability is inherently dangerous.



#83 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:22 PM

 

 

 

 Just didn't know it by that term. Doesn't say they are sucking it up, it says they can. Sounds plausible, but it would take more than Google and Yahoo, so your assertion of everything is not accurate. They have doubts about that too. Snowden's information needs to be verified. 
 
 Had a terrorist suicide attack by a guy who was in the grip of a dangerous ideology the other day at LAX. It wasn't the governments fault that somebody convinced him of bullshit. I want at least some ability to combat terrorists and organized crime to remain, but can't think of a way to make an effective process to do that completely transparent. 

You are trying really hard to ignore the obvious. The leak shows that they ARE diverting and storing user data from Google and Yahoo, without their knowledge or authorization. Private American data is included in that. This isn't a maybe. This is what IS happening. Do you really think it stops with this particular case of Google and Yahoo? Are you really that fucking stupid?

It doesn't stop with them. I have been saying the same thing for well over a year before snowden leaked anything. No tinfoil hat needed when you know enough of the network engineers. Word gets around.

 

  That's kinda my point, it's been known to anyone who understood the laws put in place after 9/11 that this is being done. Legally. Under warrants from the FISA (for international) or other courts for domestic stuff. 

 

The problem is I don't see how a warrant for this kind of broad, non-specific domestic spying would be valid if actually challenged.  Warrants are supposed to be for specific circumstances with narrow objectives and there has to be probable cause by the specific person.

 

Would a search warrant for the entire city of Boise, ID just "in case" there might be some criminal activity going on there pass muster?  I doubt it.  Would a phone wiretap warrant for every house in the suburb of Pasadena if LE thought there might be some illegal gang activity happening somewhere?  I don't think so. 

 

You can't have a valid warrant that says the NSA can suck up every email, every text, every phone call, etc in the US.  Just because a warrant such as that might "exist" doesn't make it valid or legal. 

 

I could give two shits what they do overseas.  I have very little problem with listening in on Angela's phone sex - other than poor judgment.  But domestic spying is a whole nother can O worms.  You'd better have a really good and really specific reason to read my emails.

 

   Challenge can be done, but these secret squirrel-minding judicial courts are supervised by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court. Who do we appeal to in a case that posits the Supreme Court is acting in an unconstitutional way? We have judicial overview. That's the wall I'm bumping up against. All three branches are now involved. What more is there? 

 

  The point was also there has been no such warrant. Snowden's information is about ability.



#84 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:18 PM


 

   Challenge can be done, but these secret squirrel-minding judicial courts are supervised by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court. Who do we appeal to in a case that posits the Supreme Court is acting in an unconstitutional way? We have judicial overview. That's the wall I'm bumping up against. All three branches are now involved. What more is there? 

 

  The point was also there has been no such warrant. Snowden's information is about ability.

Why do you keep ignoring the facts? It is clear that private American data is being collected without authorization or warrant. The ability is no longer the issue. The issue now is do we keep allowing our government to say "oops", or do we hold them accountable and demand an end to this?



#85 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:27 PM

Since the FISA courts are secret we have only hints at what laws are being broken. A full and public disclosure should be made but frankly we are at the whim of politicians here.

#86 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,108 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:28 PM

Since the FISA courts are secret we have only hints at what laws are being broken. A full and public disclosure should be made but frankly we are at the whim of politicians here.

#87 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:36 PM

Since the FISA courts are secret we have only hints at what laws are being broken. A full and public disclosure should be made but frankly we are at the whim of politicians here.

 

 There's an unsolvable conundrum in LE and having complete transparency in investigative process. The lawyers are struggling with how to apply this to the interwebs.  I suspect the kids are right, there's no way to secure it. It's like a massive bulletin board. Want opaque electronic "envelopes"? How will your cooties-sniffer software inspect it for virus? 



#88 Heads Up

Heads Up

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Location:Lake Michigan

Posted 01 December 2013 - 02:46 PM

http://www.reuters.c...E9AO0Y120131125

#89 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 01 December 2013 - 03:13 PM

I sincerely hope the entire cache is released. Our government has brought this upon itself. Our leaders are not above the law.



#90 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 01 December 2013 - 04:23 PM

Needs to be slowly released over many years. We have short attention spans.

#91 dogsridewith

dogsridewith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:33 PM

If Snowden could do what he did, then the NSA analysts can obtain stock market tips and steal, or casually divulge, intellectual property. They have the word "Loveint" for their cyber stalking, but claim it only happened a few times. There is an obvious lack of supervision/oversight/discipline.

#92 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 12:03 AM

 If "whistle blowing" is simply informing a lot of people of things they didn't previously know he certainly qualifies, no doubt about it. 

 

 Can anybody think of a way that it could be supervised without exposing all it's operations? 



#93 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 12:29 AM

 If "whistle blowing" is simply informing a lot of people of things they didn't previously know he certainly qualifies, no doubt about it. 

 

 Can anybody think of a way that it could be supervised without exposing all it's operations? 

Why would you want to keep these operations hidden? At this point it is obvious to me that our government is well beyond being capable of being honest. I think the entire NSA needs to be scrapped and "terrorism" surveillance needs to be put into the hands of the FBI and CIA with the explicit direction that each case is handled according to the laws of our Constitution. That means the requirement of a warrant to spy on citizens (domestic or foreign) and collect their mail, phone calls, texts, email, or any other personal communications they engage in. Collecting everything to look for something is not acceptable.

 

I'm curious if you defended the Patriot Act when the Bush administration lawyers deliberately issued perverted interpretations of US law in order to open the doors to this insanity?



#94 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,173 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 03 December 2013 - 12:35 AM

Can anybody think of a way that it could be supervised without exposing all it's operations? 

 

Well, sorry to be literal, but you might not want to hire GEDs as SysAdmins for the crown jewels. That'd be a start.



#95 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:00 AM

 If "whistle blowing" is simply informing a lot of people of things they didn't previously know he certainly qualifies, no doubt about it. 

 

 Can anybody think of a way that it could be supervised without exposing all it's operations? 

Why would you want to keep these operations hidden? At this point it is obvious to me that our government is well beyond being capable of being honest. I think the entire NSA needs to be scrapped and "terrorism" surveillance needs to be put into the hands of the FBI and CIA with the explicit direction that each case is handled according to the laws of our Constitution. That means the requirement of a warrant to spy on citizens (domestic or foreign) and collect their mail, phone calls, texts, email, or any other personal communications they engage in. Collecting everything to look for something is not acceptable.

 

I'm curious if you defended the Patriot Act when the Bush administration lawyers deliberately issued perverted interpretations of US law in order to open the doors to this insanity?

 

 There is a need for secrecy in catching bad guys and affairs of state. Jefferson's code still hasn't been (officially) broken, but that he had one shows what some think they are entitled to isn't something that has just been robbed from them. The Japanese one was broken though, and the need to keep that a secret is pretty obvious. Check out Giuliani's take-down of the NY crime families some time for another example. 

 

  Obviously, the potential for abuse is there. Always has been, always will be. The US is unique in having it's current system of judicial oversight, and that's obviously not perfect either. I am honestly at a loss to think up something better.

 

 I didn't defend the Patriot Act, but that is besides the point. It made the things Bush did legal, and while I don't believe all of them have to be, they are, and my opinion of them doesn't change that. I think it's key in shaping ones understanding of what Snowden is revealing. Many seem to think he is revealing illegal activities.   



#96 ramwel2010

ramwel2010

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:45 AM

Secrecy has little to do with it, Mark. Get a judge to agree the surveillance is justified, sign a warrant and spy all you want. Rolling over and claiming this an unavoidable reality because calling these programs for the bullshit they are would interfere with your party loyalty is just spineless.



#97 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,871 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 04:21 AM

Secrecy has little to do with it, Mark. Get a judge to agree the surveillance is justified, sign a warrant and spy all you want. Rolling over and claiming this an unavoidable reality because calling these programs for the bullshit they are would interfere with your party loyalty is just spineless.

 

Party loyalty????

 

I always find it amusing when party becomes the center of every government action.  I didn't like the PATRIOT act and still don't.  Nevertheless, it has been supported by both parties since its passage.

 

Look at Cuba.  The embargo was put in place by a democrat and has been maintained ever since regardless of the party of the POTUS or the majorities in either congressional chamber.

 

You may not have noticed but not only has the current POTUS failed to close GITMO as promised but the Cuba embargo is still in place and hasn't been mentioned.

 

OH, wait, there is a dog that needs wagging.



#98 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,868 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 December 2013 - 05:44 AM

 

 If "whistle blowing" is simply informing a lot of people of things they didn't previously know he certainly qualifies, no doubt about it. 

 

 Can anybody think of a way that it could be supervised without exposing all it's operations? 

Why would you want to keep these operations hidden? At this point it is obvious to me that our government is well beyond being capable of being honest. I think the entire NSA needs to be scrapped and "terrorism" surveillance needs to be put into the hands of the FBI and CIA with the explicit direction that each case is handled according to the laws of our Constitution. That means the requirement of a warrant to spy on citizens (domestic or foreign) and collect their mail, phone calls, texts, email, or any other personal communications they engage in. Collecting everything to look for something is not acceptable.

 

I'm curious if you defended the Patriot Act when the Bush administration lawyers deliberately issued perverted interpretations of US law in order to open the doors to this insanity?

 

 There is a need for secrecy in catching bad guys and affairs of state. Jefferson's code still hasn't been (officially) broken, but that he had one shows what some think they are entitled to isn't something that has just been robbed from them. The Japanese one was broken though, and the need to keep that a secret is pretty obvious. Check out Giuliani's take-down of the NY crime families some time for another example. 

 

  Obviously, the potential for abuse is there. Always has been, always will be. The US is unique in having it's current system of judicial oversight, and that's obviously not perfect either. I am honestly at a loss to think up something better.

 

 I didn't defend the Patriot Act, but that is besides the point. It made the things Bush did legal, and while I don't believe all of them have to be, they are, and my opinion of them doesn't change that. I think it's key in shaping ones understanding of what Snowden is revealing. Many seem to think he is revealing illegal activities.   

 

As I've said many times - I'm torn about the NSA thing.  On one hand, I think they are doing really good work and doubtless have prevented some attacks.  I've personally worked with them on overseas Ops and they have some amazing capabilities.

 

OTOH, the scope of the domestic spying is what troubles me the most.  While they might be doing anything technically illegal - I do think they are violating the spirit and intent of the FISA laws.  The problem I see is that they are essentially collecting everything electronic and then supposedly they only actually analyze a small portion of the data.  While on the surface, that might seem reasonable.... the fact that all that data is there if someone wants to abuse it makes it far too tempting for someone not to eventually abuse it.  Also, the intent of the 4th Am is that you have to have probable cause to violate someone's privacy.  Under this NSA broad policy of sucking up of all the trons going across the cell phone towers and internets - that privacy is being violated without any cause other than its there. 

 

And whether or not someone is acutally reading your emails or texts is irrelevant.  The fact that it IS stored in some data wharehouse under the control of the gov't and accessible at anytime HAS an ABSOLUTE chilling effect on freedom of speech and on privacy rights.  We all joke about be careful of what you say in an email or text because the NSA is reading it..... but its not really a joke anymore.  The fact that we modify our behavior (no matter how slightly) wrt to what we say, write or text because we know what we say is being recorded - absolutely has a chilling effect on speech. 

 

I don't know what the answer is either.  But I would say it starts with better oversight.  The fact that Congress and even some members of the intel oversight committees seemed surprised at the scope of these programs tells me that there wasn't a lot of good oversight going on.  I would also say the FISA court needs to be much more robust and involved and not be allowed to just issue blanket collection warrants.  I think warrants need to be much more narrowly tailored to specifics rather than broad collection and storage. 

 

In summary - while I absolutely see a need to possess these kinds of capabilities by our gov't and those capabilities do NOT need to be made public, I think we need to have better controls on those who collect and use that data.  Imagine if J. Edgar had the NSA capes back then.....  It could have been REALLY ugly.  And just because we fortunately don't have a J, Edgar Hoover in power now doesn't mean that we will never have one.  But more importantly, the chilling nature of these programs on our speech and privacy need to be addressed.  I don't think the public needs to know everything the NSA is doing or how.  But they need to have confidence that they aren't being spied on without a damn good reason.  And we don't have that confidence right now.  That confidence needs to be restored ASAP, or the relationship between the people and its gov't will continue to erode and the outcome will be ugly. 



#99 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,173 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 03 December 2013 - 06:34 AM

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Look at Cuba.  The embargo was put in place by a democrat and has been maintained ever since regardless of the party of the POTUS or the majorities in either congressional chamber.
 
More blah.

Actually the Cuba embargo was started in July 1960 by Eisenhower (actually 1958). Sorry for the confusion.

http://en.m.wikipedi...go_against_Cuba

#100 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,176 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 06:34 AM

 The problem I see is that they are essentially collecting everything electronic 

  A lot of people seem to believe that, but is it true? 

 

  If anybody with knowledge of the system states that is what is happening, I've yet to see it. The sworn testimony from multiple party's and the law says different. Snowden's stuff has been of plans that suggest a capability to collect "everything", but isn't evidence that it's been done.

 

  What they are swearing under oath to be doing is getting permission from a court to preserve a "haystack", a set amount of data related to some grouping of contacts. They need to show the judge their reason for doing that, and explain the size. Lets say you have reason to be believe there's a guy who is part of a cell. They get permission to preserve all his call records, and the records of who they in turn called, maybe out to the next three generations or so. Even then, they can't dig into content of E-mails until they again go to a court for a warrant to do that. 

 

  Seems a lot of the time they only seek, or maybe get, permission to preserve a "haystack" only, and may or may not seek permission to get a court to sign off on any examination later. Seems the court is willing to let them preserve some stuff that might be useful if something happens or other evidence shows it might be useful "just in case".  Otherwise the companies destroy it as a matter of SOP. 

 

 I keep trying to think of something better that doesn't result in either blindfolding our sheepdogs or absolutely giving away the game to the bad guys, but I haven't come up with anything yet.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users