View Full Version : What is your stance on the actions of Eric Snowden?
gimmethesimplelife
6-13-13, 4:56am
Just thought I would pose this question as some pretty unsettling evidence of data collection by the government has come to light.....It is true that I tend to support big government but this.....this to me is overreach, what has come to light. I don't know that Snowden is a "hero" but I do think he is worthy of respect and I hope that he is offered asylum in a halfway decent country and can just be left alone. I don't consider what he did a crime, personally.
Sometimes I really don't recognize this country any more. It sure has changed in appearance and tone and rhetoric since the 70's and 80's..... Rob
PS Sorry, the man's name is Edward Snowden....very tired as I type this.
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-13, 6:27am
It is true that I tend to support big government but this.....
I don't know that I bother with that framing much anymore. Much of what is sold by small government rhetoric is plutocracy which I suspect doesn't lead to civil liberties in the end. I want civil liberties. And yes this current push toward a police state is abhorant. I want civil liberties.
this to me is overreach, what has come to light.
+1
I don't know that Snowden is a "hero"
it's way too soon to tell and I'm not huge into heroes (but heck if some people don't win me over though!! :))
but I do think he is worthy of respect
yes much respect
and I hope that he is offered asylum in a halfway decent country and can just be left alone.
yes
I don't consider what he did a crime, personally.
I don't consider what is legal to necessarily have much at all to do with what is moral. It may be a crime (probably is). But what the government was doing which he leaked should ITSELF be a crime. I mean that half of the equation should also be looked at. They shouldn't be able to overrule a law of the land like the 4th amendment like that (yes I guess it's the AUMF, but still they shouldn't be able to overrule the constution via laws short of amending it). So some things are lawyer questions for lawyers but ... the laws of the land at this point seem to this layperson a hopeless bundle of contradictions. And I don't think that's accidental :\
Sometimes I really don't recognize this country any more. It sure has changed in appearance and tone and rhetoric since the 70's and 80's.....
+1 I like the emphasis on appearance and tone and rhetoric as opposed to "reality" (ie maybe they were always scum but the powers that be sure gave more attention to keeping up appearances and throwing people bones before). That's the government. As for the people of this country ... ha my opinion might not be positive. But I try not to go into those generalizations because they are often based on things that aren't very trustworthy anyway (like media)
I was initially undecided, especially given the parallels between Snowden and Ellsberg, but the more I learned about the issue, the more I grew to feel that Snowden is a traitor and should face stiff repudiation for his crimes.
I watched an interview on Charlie Rose last night and heard opposing views on his actions.
How can one person with limited knowledge and world experience make decisions on situations international in scope and understand both the intended and unintended consequences of his actions?
What he has exposed is the vulnerability of the security system in general. I wonder how this will translate into action and security in the future?
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-13, 8:40am
How can one person with limited knowledge and world experience make decisions on situations international in scope and understand both the intended and unintended consequences of his actions?
I think the decisions of the government are in theory supposed to be made democratically. How can democracies make decisions lacking information on what is really happening and what the government is really doing?
Having so many secrets itself limits the decision making to a very limited group.
I watched an interview on Charlie Rose last night and heard opposing views on his actions.
How can one person with limited knowledge and world experience make decisions on situations international in scope and understand both the intended and unintended consequences of his actions?
What he has exposed is the vulnerability of the security system in general. I wonder how this will translate into action and security in the future?
I tend to agree with you. What kind of narcissistic twit decides after three months on the job that his superior intellect and moral sensibility obviate any promises he made to observe the law? But perhaps more to the point, who vetted him in the first place. I think he needs to be prosecuted under the laws he would have been made aware of at the time he was hired. But at the same time, I think NSA needs to review its human reliability program. If you give a chimp a gun and the chimp shoots somebody, who really deserves the most blame?
I'm undecided.
On the one hand, I believe the government has gone well beyond the spirit of the law on this one. This is blanket record gathering rather than targeted and seems to ignore all lawful restraints. The citizenry should be aware of the extent they are being monitored. I commend him for letting us know.
On the other hand, his admissions and revelations have gone beyond informing the American people of the government's intrusion into their privacy as he has also advised the Chinese that we are making excursions into their computer networks. He seems to be telling everything he knows to whoever will listen. He should be prosecuted for that.
If we are suddenly going to begin enforcing the law equally, he broke the law and should face the consequences. Law isn't really law if it's arbitrarily applied.
We're used to so much privacy and freedom in this country. To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all.........if its truly being used to stop bad things from happening. I guess we just don't know for sure what the true intentions are. But if it HAS foiled a bunch of terrorist plots, I don't mind in the least. We all cry and scream when bad things happen in the U.S............but why do we also scream if the government is trying to keep those things from happening? I wonder how many plots have been foiled because something was found, just by tracking everyone's cell phone/internet, rather than being suspicious of someone to start with (because of other Intel), and then wire-tapping, etc.? That would be good to know.
Maybe I'm one of the few........but it just doesn't bother me to know that the government might be monitoring my cell phone calls. What bothers me more is that companies can bug the hell out of me with their ads, because someone get words I've used out of my emails and then tries to sell me stuff, based on that.
I guess I didn't answer the question. I'm undecided too...about how I feel about Snowden.
We're used to so much privacy and freedom in this country. To be honest, it doesn't bother me at all.........if its truly being used to stop bad things from happening. I guess we just don't know for sure what the true intentions are. But if it HAS foiled a bunch of terrorist plots, I don't mind in the least. We all cry and scream when bad things happen in the U.S............but why do we also scream if the government is trying to keep those things from happening? I wonder how many plots have been foiled because something was found, just by tracking everyone's cell phone/internet, rather than being suspicious of someone to start with (because of other Intel), and then wire-tapping, etc.? That would be good to know.
Maybe I'm one of the few........but it just doesn't bother me to know that the government might be monitoring my cell phone calls. What bothers me more is that companies can bug the hell out of me with their ads, because someone get words I've used out of my emails and then tries to sell me stuff, based on that.
I guess I didn't answer the question. I'm undecided too...about how I feel about Snowden.
I would bet that most policy makers perform the same calculation. Would I rather catch the heat for the next atrocity, or be seen as soft on privacy? I would guess the poll numbers would show the first situation to be less desirable.
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??
Yes. If not the NSA database, there are others with perhaps the same info according to Maxine Waters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2TNrlIv2bY
The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life...
That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before...
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-13, 3:58pm
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??
oh i absolutely believe so and I am plenty scared. Things in the world are for the most part not heading in a good way (in so many ways). There will come a time when you will want your ability to protest, when it will be all the protects what you need (no I'm not talking "government entitlements", so anyone who wants to hurl that accusation, nope, although I don't mind protests about that, and for some it is survival, I'm actually fighting a far more basic battle than the liberal one of "preserving the social safety net", protesting against say the destruction of the local environment one must live in (and I do mean local - not climate change), pretty much the ability to protest anything from the complete domination of might makes right). And there won't be any ability to protest left.
But the government may do good things with the information they spy on, like they say they are. *Yes*. And equally the government may do *bad* things with it (use it to crack down on dissent). Now tell me again why should I believe the good things are more likely to happen than the bad? Because the government is democratically accountable? Well actually the government is more money accountable than democratically accountable given the vast money flood. But even if it we were to say the government is democratically accountable, a secretive government is not democratically accountable because people can not vote on what they do not know about obviously. If we must be transparent to them and big data is here to stay, then they should be transparent to us. As for the actual information we have on terror plots being foiled, I think spying on everyone to foil a Boston bomber here and there isn't worth it (actually they couldn't foil that one anyway), but they also won't tell us what plots were foiled because it's classified. You see how absurd the whole thing is? Government: the secret program that we lied to you about is used to foil terrorists plots. Citizens: got any proof of that? Government: it's secret, trust us. So we don't even know if any plots were foiled at all.
He broke the law and should be in prison? Fine. I'm not saying he didn't break the law. But much of the government broke the law and should be sitting in a prison cell at this point - they violated the Constitution.
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??
What if corporations "tilt" the data they are providing to incriminate or hide certain demographics? The information the government has is only as good or as accurate as what is being provided. How would they know?
One thing I haven't seen is any sort of compensation to the businesses providing this information. I wonder how much quality or accuracy is devoted to something provided for free? (free for the government, I expect it costs quite a bit to do this)
Added: why does it feel like no one is really concerned business have all this information available to provide to the government?
I don't have enough information on the particulars of Snowden's actions to render an opinion.
That said, anyone who didn't understand that this was going on for decades wasn't playing very close attention. My last two startup companies made huge distributed data storage systems. One of our largest customers at both companies was always the NSA, usually a large enough chunk of our business that it typically got listed in our SEC filings. Any foreign intelligence service with a brain and a calculator could have figured out why the NSA might be procuring monumental quantities of data storage/mining gear....
Added: why does it feel like no one is really concerned business have all this information available to provide to the government?
The businesses have that data because we've given it to them, often after reviewing their privacy policies which usually state that they will not share it with any third party.
Back in the day, during my corporate career, one of my responsibilities was electronic countermeasures. It has always been well understood in the industry that you can protect yourself from your business competitors but you cannot protect yourself from a curious government.
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??
How are they going to "silence" you with "data accumulation"?
Just say "never again" when they start rounding up people. Problem solved.
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-13, 6:37pm
One thing I haven't seen is any sort of compensation to the businesses providing this information. I wonder how much quality or accuracy is devoted to something provided for free? (free for the government, I expect it costs quite a bit to do this)
maybe it's akin to how companies may spend a lot of money complying with the law, it's not a profit center, it's a precondition to having a business in this country so that you can get to the profit part. I dont' know. I'm not a fly on the wall to those meetings, they are rather scary to even contemplate.
Added: why does it feel like no one is really concerned business have all this information available to provide to the government?
Isn't it kind of irrelevant if the government can tap directly into the internet? I mean companies may give information but this is only at best parsing and collating this information if the government has direct access to everything anyway. It's *a* service I guess, forming data into useful intellegence always is, but not the whole ballgame. My understanding is that if Google (etc. etc.) didn't exist they'd still have the raw data itself because they tap it *directly*.
As for private companies have a lot of data on people ... yea but that doesn't scare me as much as the government having it at least until these private companies start assembling private police forces or something. They use it to sell people things. Yea and trying to sell me things is pretty much a waste of time and money.
ApatheticNoMore
6-13-13, 6:48pm
Well if you want to silence with data accumulation J Edgar Hoover ...
So yea one can silence by intimidation but it's not the main thing I fear, I fear *targeting* of specific groups via data accumulation (like say protestors).
The NSA story was initially very boring to me precisely because of the lack of shock value, but at this point I think the response to the story IS the story as far as I am concerned. And I find it plenty troubling.
flowerseverywhere
6-13-13, 7:21pm
To early to tell what exactly happened to Snowden.
I will say those who have no concern need to read history. It was less than 100 years ago that Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps for the crime of being Jewish. A friend who escaped from a country told of living in a small village and men coming during the night and taking someone away, with no one asking questions. How Stalin came into power, the secret police squads that operate around the world where people suddenly are in police custody never to be seen again. I got an email today from someone who believes any Muslim cannot be trusted and whose main life purpose is to destroy America and Americans. They seriously believe that.
Am I worried? Not for me because spying on me would be very boring. But it impossible not to wonder the harm that could be done with all this data in the wrong hands.
To early to tell what exactly happened to Snowden.
I will say those who have no concern need to read history. It was less than 100 years ago that Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps for the crime of being Jewish. A friend who escaped from a country told of living in a small village and men coming during the night and taking someone away, with no one asking questions. How Stalin came into power, the secret police squads that operate around the world where people suddenly are in police custody never to be seen again. I got an email today from someone who believes any Muslim cannot be trusted and whose main life purpose is to destroy America and Americans. They seriously believe that.
Am I worried? Not for me because spying on me would be very boring. But it impossible not to wonder the harm that could be done with all this data in the wrong hands.
Speaking of that time, google IBM and Holocaust
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions??Nothing stops oppressive forces from acquiring such data at that time, nationalizing all data centers and such, etc. Thinking that keeping such data from the government now, when it could be using the data to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, will somehow keep that data from the government when it grows horns, a tail and grabs hold of a pitchfork, seems unreasonable to me - a bit like keeping medications out of the control of physicians, to preclude them from over-prescribing.
I think folks are getting way too worked up over this, and I'm sure some politicos are using this to their advantage. It's kind of like the 'Obama is going to drone us at the Starbucks' meme. People are just making sh*t up and ignoring the truths.
First of all, this guy broke the law. Pure and simple. Whether you like the info or not is besides the point. He broke the law is an exceptionally grievous way, and is by definition a traitor. We shoot traitors, or we should...I'm still waiting for Cheney to be put on trial!;) But I digress... So he is a criminal, and a fugitive.
Now, as for what the NSA is collecting. It's just numbers...data, and the ABILITY to make connections. Trust me, the NSA isn't reading your text messages, or e-mails, or listening in on your calls..unless they NEED to. Studies have shown that the average teen sends 3,417 text messages a month. 3,417! Now, let's multiply that by all the teens in the US. Do you really think the NSA is that large? They don't have enough people, or hours in the day/month/year to read/analyze all those texts. And that's just the teens! Add in phone calls, e-mails, blogs (which are there to read anyway) of everyone else. No one is combing through all that stuff. It' takes some pretty incredible egos to think the NSA is interested in their recipe e-mail to their Aunt, or text to their girlfriend, or just about anything anyone texts/phones/e-mails about every day.
So that's the volume we are talking about. The NSA doesn't give a rats ass about all this info. What they are collecting are numbers. This phone called/text this phone on this date and talked for this long. That's it. And it's just reams and reams of this type of data that is collected. Really, human eyes don't see this stuff. No one is combing these lists of numbers with a magnifying glass in hand. It's all in computer data bases.
So what is it for? Well, let's look at a real world example. The Boston bombers. Teenagers. When they were discovered, and their numbers determined, then the government could go to their data base and put in their numbers. Out comes those connections. OK, lot's of texts/phone calls to their girlfriends. Maybe a lot more to the local pizza parlor, etc... But, there, days before the bombing, and on the morning of the bombing, they called /text a certain number many many times..and it wasn't the pizza parlor, or the shoe store, or whatever. Maybe an accomplice? A 'backer' so to speak? Who knew, but now the government had THAT information, and could read/listen/look into this number. Remember, many people died, and many more maimed, and those kids were still on the loose. They needed to find not only them, but if there were any more. The city was tense, on alert, and time was short. They needed to make these connections, and they needed to do it quickly.
This is how the government uses that information. I'm glad the government can make these kinds of connections. Frankly, I don't want my government reduced to tin cans and string.
ApatheticNoMore
6-14-13, 4:04pm
read this:
http://www.privacysos.org/node/1077
Is that guy for real, is he really from a arab spring country, is it just some nobody making up credentials? UNKNOWN. Null value. I mean I'm sure the NSA knows but we don't. But it is what our worst fears are. And I apologize for my selfishness in discussing this (why not at least pick a resonable critique, that is at least debatable, like whether such concerns expressed are overstated or not, based on global and historical knowledge of say police states ... see that would be a real argument).
I keep wondering along these lines: What if in the future we get involved in a war or a tax or laws that is unpopular / unnecessary/immoral/ illegal or whatever. Don't you think that all this data accumulation will be used to silence those opposing said government actions?? I don't think anyone would try to "silence" us or take away any of our freedoms - especially our rights to free speech and protest. How would they do that anyways? Enforce some sort of Police State and use gestapo tactics to make us comply (Ve haf vays uf making you comply, ja)? Send us off to "re-education" camps? Instill mind probes that beam "proper thoughts" subliminally into our brains from roving government satalites in space? I think that there is a big leap between secret (or not so secret now :-)) surveilance and data collection and actually using that data or enforcement tactics to remove our constitutional rights.
So no, I don't think that would ever happen. There might be some sort of propaganda machine to try and convert us - using words like "Patriot" Act to convince us that voluntarily giving up our freedoms is for the greater good of the nation, but I don't think any kind of enforcement policy will ever happen. But just in case I am dusting off my tin foil hat to avoid those pesky spy satalites and their evil mind probes :-)!
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-13, 2:54pm
I don't think anyone would try to "silence" us or take away any of our freedoms - especially our rights to free speech and protest. How would they do that anyways? Enforce some sort of Police State and use gestapo tactics to make us comply?
with protests I think you can just crack down on the protests pretty hard, that's one way to discourage it. Of course to some extent protests long have been cracked down on - to some extent. Hard how? Well in the occupygeza thing they seem to be using various gasses on people (tear and pepper, possibly unknown new gasses but I don't know about that). You use LRADs. You use old fashioned police brutality. You arrest people and they know you have laws like NDAA that *could* be used against them. Will they ever? Ah but everyone always knows they are there. But that has not to do with surveilence. Right, it doesn't.
What is the survielence for: 1) TO CREATE A CLIMATE OF FEAR. It sends a pretty clear message to people to be afraid. Now if one is inclined to be afraid and take this (probably ludicrously far), they see this as: don't talk about politics on the web or online, you never know, it might get you in trouble, don't sign those political petitions you keep being asked to sign about one issue or other... and there's a certain real loss of participation in this nominal democracy among the most fearful. And it shouldn't be that way. If one is a little less worried that OMG I commented on politics on cnn.com or something, one still might see this as: don't think about getting more involved in politics, don't go to the protest, don't become an activist, they're watching. But are the fears grounded? I don't know, maybe not, I mean there are reports of crackdowns on dissent to a certain extent all the time. But I'm not saying surrender to fear. I'm saying it creates a certain amount of fear in people and the point may be fear itself. 2) If they wanted to target activists, they could have their whole network, could know everyone one keeps in contact with (the whole activist network). That's metadata. It gives a certain strategic advantage to cracking down on protest maybe? It at least gives an informational advantage right? And it allows targeting if you are going full bore police state. If you believe the arab spring was facilitated through modern technology, cell phones and twitter, then spying on it has to be of some value. So build a resistance movement outside of cell phones and the net? Well yea if the threat is real enough, the police state is real enough, and your really trying to evade the Stasi, then duh. That's what extreme circumstances call for. However, what about the time before then, think of what this means to actual politics in the actual world we live in now in nominal democracies, where everyone is not convinced we live under a police state yet. Everyone is online, everyone has a cell phone, if the entire of your protest movement is a few paranoid geeks, you have lost before you have even begun! If you can't even build a significant size movement, what is the point (yea but ... but ..10 paranoid super geeks are on my side >8) - well that works for Anonymous but that's about all) Technology is the way to reach people in the modern world. So organizing politically of any size must happen in that world, but there's a chill ... as it's all monitored and everybody knows this (cue Leonard Cohen - there's gonna be a meter on your bed that will disclose ...).
Instill mind probes that beam "proper thoughts" subliminally into our brains from roving government satalites in space?
figure out how people become politically "deviant". Stop that at the source. :)
I think that there is a big leap between secret (or not so secret now :-)) surveilance and data collection and actually removing our constitutional rights.
maybe if it wasn't also accompanied by so much other Constitution destroying police state legislation in the last decade (like the NDAA).
But just in case I am dusting off my tin foil hat :-)!
oh sure but the point is to stop it before it gets to tin foil hat territory. That really is the entire point. Not to argue about which worst case scenario is most probable to come true.
Now, as for what the NSA is collecting. It's just numbers...data, and the ABILITY to make connections. Trust me, the NSA isn't reading your text messages, or e-mails, or listening in on your calls..unless they NEED to....
...What they are collecting are numbers. This phone called/text this phone on this date and talked for this long. That's it. And it's just reams and reams of this type of data that is collected. Really, human eyes don't see this stuff. No one is combing these lists of numbers with a magnifying glass in hand. It's all in computer data bases.
In reality, it's not quite as innocuous as that. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/) works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
QUOTE=Alan;145504]In reality, it's not quite as innocuous as that. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/[/QUOTE]
And they don't really need this data to do that, do they. They can simply look in the phone book for your number, or any other of the hundreds of public records that have your number. Try signing up for ANYTHING without giving your number...but you know that.
This data base IS just the ability to make the connections between your number and any other. And really, you know they aren't just selecting folks at random to listen in on their phone call to their girlfriend. They are using it to make connections if you, or one of your friends, happens to bomb something/someone. Or if you post death threats on-line. Yeah, they need to make those connections too. And sure they probably need underlings to do preliminary investigation because of the volume of text/phone calls/e-mails every hour of every day.
Saying this doesn't mean I think they should run roughshod over all, and of course there needs to be checks and balances in place, just as in ANY program. I just don't think all this hand wringing is warranted in this case. Although I'm sure we will again be a bit of entertainment side show in Spartana's circus, I will post just one example of glaring hypocrisy (there are sooo many)
http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_s_nsa_surveillance_hypocrisy_the_video_061 32013
I believe in truth to power, and the power in truth. The government DOES bear watching, but too often crying wolf does no one a service. I suppose this is one of my major complaints of the republican/far right. EVERYTHING is a crisis, Watergate-like, worthy of impeachment, spun up outrage, etc...Kind of waters the message to the point of..yawn, what next...yawn. It really shouldn't be that way. Too much of that and we will miss the really important things.
Maybe that's their evil plan all along! (see republicans and sharia law):0!
What I find fascinating is not the story itself, but rather observing the people who are leaping forth to defend the data collection, and their versions of what "is really going on"...
I believe in truth to power, and the power in truth. The government DOES bear watching, but too often crying wolf does no one a service. I suppose this is one of my major complaints of the republican/far right. EVERYTHING is a crisis, Watergate-like, worthy of impeachment, spun up outrage, etc...Kind of waters the message to the point of..yawn, what next...yawn. It really shouldn't be that way. Too much of that and we will miss the really important things.
Maybe that's their evil plan all along! (see republicans and sharia law):0!You've hit the nail on the head.
Some of the critics that are making a big deal of what the NSA and CIA have been doing for decades, albeit updated to today's technology, are perhaps indeed working hard to distract attention from what's truly important - economic equality, anti-discrimination, and yes, the freedom to live in accordance with one's own beliefs and values, within one's own body, own family, and own worship, without society or anyone within it applying ramifications, or insinuating their own beliefs, on you for doing so.
Some of the critics that are making a big deal of what the NSA and CIA have been doing for decades, albeit updated to today's technology, are perhaps indeed working hard to distract attention from what's truly important....
Let's say that you're an avid letter writer who corresponds with many friends, family and acquaintances through the mail. Now, let's say that the ever watchful eye of government has decided that it must intercept each of your letters (and replies), open them and scan the contents prior to sending them on to their final destination. They're not necessarily going to read them in real time, although reserve the right to do so if they wish.
Upon any hint of impropriety by yourself or your correspondant, these scanned communications will be used as an investigatory, and perhaps prosecutorial tool against you.
Does this seem to be in the spirit of our constitutional protection of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."?
I would argue that the technology you use has no effect on that protection and that passive acceptance of that loss of liberty subjects us all to tyranny.
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. ~ Charles de Montesquieu
Let's say that ...Why are you trying to equivocate away the fact that reasonable people disagree about what you're saying? You think Snowden revealed something that should be revealed. Other people consider him a traitor. I believe in neither of the extremes, that instead of that Snowden is simply guilty of espionage, but not treason. You cannot foster primacy of your own perspective through stories.
Upon any hint of impropriety ...Be more specific. (Yes: This is a trap I've set out for you.)
Does this seem to be in the spirit of our constitutional protection...It seems to be in the spirit of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I would argue that ...But it is just your argument. It doesn't actually benefit the nation more than consequences of the counter-arguments do. (Before you reply, be sure you understand the literal meaning of the word "actually", the meaning intended here.)
Why are you trying to equivocate away the fact that reasonable people disagree about what you're saying?
I'm not. I'm looking at a situation from another perspective and sharing it with you as a point of discussion. Most reasonable people don't object to that.
Be more specific. (Yes: This is a trap I've set out for you.)
I don't respond well to traps, real or imagined. My words stand on their own, why try to obfuscate?
It seems to be in the spirit of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Only if you've decided that all citizens are enemies, or potential enemies.
But it is just your argument. It doesn't actually benefit the nation more than consequences of the counter-arguments do. (Before you reply, be sure you understand the literal meaning of the word "actually", the meaning intended here.)
See my second response above and substitute the phrase "word games" in place of "traps, real or imagined".
I don't respond well to traps, real or imagined.The point wasn't for your to fall into the trap, but to realize that if you were actually held to account for what you said, your comments would fall apart.
My words stand on their own, why try to obfuscate?So now you're claiming that providing specific examples would obfuscate the issue. Uh huh.
Only if you've decided that all citizens are enemies, or potential enemies.False. Rather, only if you've decided that some citizens are enemies, or potential enemies (or, I suppose, that non-citizens may be posting as citizens).
See my second response above and substitute the phrase "word games" in place of "traps, real or imagined".Dodge, weave, evade. The point what you don't want to grant (and I can respect your desire not to) is that you cannot show that your way is better - only that it favors your preferences.
The point wasn't for your to fall into the trap, but to realize that if you were actually held to account for what you said, your comments would fall apart.
Really? How so. Give examples please.
So now you're claiming that providing specific examples would obfuscate the issue. Uh huh.
Nope, I'm claiming that all your obfuscation doesn't change the point already made.
False. Rather, only if you've decided that some citizens are enemies, or potential enemies (or, I suppose, that non-citizens may be posting as citizens).
Broad sweeps hoping to find something specific targets all. If you believe in the concept of freedom from unreasonable search you'd,,,,oh wait, apparently you don't.
Dodge, weave, evade. The point what you don't want to grant (and I can respect your desire not to) is that you cannot show that your way is better - only that it favors your preferences.
A better way to what? Facism? The destruction of the individual rights of privacy?
And now, for a palate cleanser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SegAoSpHJck
Were Snoden's actions illegal? Yes. Regardless of how anyone feels about the law, his actions were in violation of it/them.
Should he be punished for that? Yes. We have a system in place that can be used to overturn the law if it is shown to be unjust.
Is Snowden an arrogant little snipe? Don't know him, but it sure looks that way. It takes arrogance, among other things, to decide (from a low level position) that you are a better judge of what's best for the country than anyone else. Gen. Alexander (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/), et al, my have a different take.
Am I glad to have confirmation of a program that most people always suspected? Yes. But an even bigger fear is what might come next now that the cover on this operation has been blown. And no, I do not think this program will end just because it is common knowledge that it exists.
In the end I think Snowden should be prosecuted.
It seems to be in the spirit of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Only if you've decided that all citizens are enemies, or potential enemies.
False. Rather, only if you've decided that some citizens are enemies, or potential enemies (or, I suppose, that non-citizens may be posting as citizens).
Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the thought of defending myself against legitimate and tangible threats than I am with feeling I need to take steps to avoid a preemptive strike. I'm also just old fashioned enough to believe that every conversation I have should not be open to scrutiny by anyone aside from the other participants. Casting huge nets to catch all the fish in the sea and then throwing back ones that don't seem threatening is not a logical method of dealing with a problem. I just can not come up with any threat that has enough credibility to justify that response.
Really? How so. Give examples please.In order for me to do so, you'd have to provide the examples as I requested earlier, the aforementioned trap, so I can provided you examples of how I'd respond to each.
Nope, I'm claiming that all your obfuscation doesn't change the point already made.You can claim whatever you want.
Broad sweeps hoping to find something specific targets all.A ridiculously biased way of trying to mischaracterize the reality. Of course, the "hope" is that nothing is found, so your characterization wasn't even close to actual.
If you believe in the concept of freedom from unreasonable search you'd,,,,oh wait, apparently you don't.If you believe that the only things that are reasonable are things that you yourself prefer... oh wait, that's your whole premise.
A better way to what? Facism?No: A democratic republic.
The destruction of the individual rights of privacy? No: Protection of the actual rights of privacy and rejection of the self-centered corruption of the concept to place the personal preference of those who place self-centered motivations over society's responsibilities to its members.
ApatheticNoMore
6-17-13, 12:36pm
Should he be punished for that? Yes. We have a system in place that can be used to overturn the law if it is shown to be unjust.
By congress secretly trying to change it by secretly voting to do so? Is that the system? (they can't *openly* try to change it because then *they* would be the whistleblowers on the secret program!). Is congress even capable of taking these secret votes? That's a real question, I don't know.
Is Snowden an arrogant little snipe? Don't know him, but it sure looks that way.
You know Assange is one who rubs me as being a true narcissists. Yea, maybe the real deal. Does it influence my opinion of Wikileaks? Not a bit.
It takes arrogance, among other things, to decide (from a low level position) that you are a better judge of what's best for the country than anyone else. Gen. Alexander, et al, my have a different take.
Everyone else is maybe the president and his advisors and congress, perhaps some of the military heirarchy. It isn't the people (they didn't know), this handfull of people have decided they know what is best better than *millions* of Americans. And it isn't even everyone at the NSA, for all we know most NSA employees might think the program is ill-advised, including many in positions much higher than Snowden. But keep your head down and .... those type of beurarcracies often have no way to critique themselves, even if the some of the best people at them know they are on the wrong course. I don't see what he did as being arrrogance but rather principled. But I suppose my definition of principled might be somes definition or arrogance (i.e. do what you believe is the right thing).
Yossarian
7-24-13, 12:38pm
I hope that he is offered asylum in a halfway decent country
Kind of ironic that a person purportedly opposing government spying would take asylum in Russia, no? Looks increasingly like his only option.
Since he cannot seem to keep secrets he promises to keep within a nation that doesn't kill you for revealing state secrets, perhaps living in a nation that does kill people for revealing state secrets will be the appropriate solution. Stranger things...
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-13, 1:53pm
Kind of ironic that a person purportedly opposing government spying would take asylum in Russia, no? Looks increasingly like his only option.
Because the whole wide world, at least the major players, is mostly rather totalitarian power blocks (very much including the U.S.). Welcome to the world, 2013 edition. But it's the U.S. he's escaping, so into the arms of another one of those power blocks, that may be worse in some ways sure, but it's not after him. Though he might really prefer somewhere in Latin America - remember he's not being allowed to leave! To blame him for his choice of Russia when his choices are so constrained is kind nonsensical. His choices are so constained that Amnesty International BEGS the U.S. to allow him to seek asylum (as a basic universal human right).
“The US attempts to pressure governments to block Snowden’s attempts to seek asylum are deplorable,” said Michael Bochenek, Director of Law and Policy at Amnesty International. “It is his unassailable right, enshrined in international law, to claim asylum and this should not be impeded.”
“We know that others who have been prosecuted for similar acts have been held in conditions that not only Amnesty International but UN officials considered cruel inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of international law.”
https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-not-persecute-whistleblower-edward-snowden-2013-07-02
He might not face death but I don't doubt he faces life imprisonment. However, yea sure I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems to me that the legal groundwork for killing whistleblowers has been laid IF they wanted to, even though it hasn't been used. The "aiding the enemy" charge is a capital offense, though this of course depends on the prosecution being willing to go there.
Because the whole wide world, at least the major players, is mostly rather totalitarian power blocks (very much including the U.S.).Mostly? Please list those major players that are non-totalitarian as compared to the United States, in your estimation.
Welcome to the world, 2013 edition.2013? Please list thos major players of the past that were non-totalitarian as compared to the major players in 2013.
But it's the U.S. he's escaping, so into the arms of another one of those power blocks, that may be worse in some ways sure, but it's not after him.He hasn't betrayed an obligation he made to them - yet.
Though he might really prefer somewhere in Latin America - remember he's not being allowed to leave!Let's stick to talking about major players.
To blame him for his choice of Russia when his choices are so constrained is kind nonsensical.Good point: There's more than enough blame for him stemming from his betrayal of the commitments he made.
His choices are so constained that Amnesty International BEGS the U.S. to allow him to seek asylum (as a basic universal human right).Amnesty International is assuming that his crime is political. They have a vested interest in taking that biased perspective. The reality is that he simply violated the law, and a law he explicitly promised not to violate. Amnesty International is not a world court. They represent their client like an attorney. They're wrong this time.
He might not face death but I don't doubt he faces life imprisonment.He faces the punishment that existed for the crime he committed as of when he explicitly promised not to violate that law.
However, yea sure I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems to me that the legal groundwork for killing whistleblowers has been laid IF they wanted to, even though it hasn't been used.A ridiculously inflammatory claim that has no basis in fact. I'd believe you more if you claimed that Snowden would actually be safer in a US jail than loose (in Russia or Latin America) where he could be picked off by some covert operative.
The "aiding the enemy" charge is a capital offense, though this of course depends on the prosecution being willing to go there.I haven't seen much credible arguments that he'll be charged with any such thing - unless of course he's been feeding information to Russia (or China) that we don't know about.
Don't see why people find it ironic that he is in Russia. It is about the only country with the power to stand up to the US Govt.'s strong arming, and sounds a lot better to me than doing hard time in a US prison for the rest of his life.
Perhaps - if he can just keep his mouth shut and nose clean there. If he's really doing what he's doing as a matter of principle (at least in his own mind), then Russia is just a remote prison, one no American taxpayer has to fund, so perhaps justice is done.
gimmethesimplelife
7-25-13, 6:52am
Kind of ironic that a person purportedly opposing government spying would take asylum in Russia, no? Looks increasingly like his only option.I couldn't agree with you more.....Of all the countries in the world, Snowden ends out trying to get asylum in Russia.....It's a total 180 from my youth (in the 80's) when the image of the Soviet Union was spies and intrigue and people ("dissidents" I think they were called) wanting to defect to the US. Now here we have someone getting a fair amount of media coverage and more than 15 minutes of fame - in his own way trying to defect. Life is full of irony. One of the great things about being middle aged is now I can enjoy it. Rob
And Vladimir Putin (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/24/putin-government-arrests-leading-critic-while-changing-definition-of-treason-to-allow-prosecution-of-journalists-human-rights-activists-and-dissidents/) is freedom's best friend, right? >8)
And Vladimir Putin (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/24/putin-government-arrests-leading-critic-while-changing-definition-of-treason-to-allow-prosecution-of-journalists-human-rights-activists-and-dissidents/) is freedom's best friend, right? >8)
And the USA is any different these day's.
And Vladimir Putin (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/24/putin-government-arrests-leading-critic-while-changing-definition-of-treason-to-allow-prosecution-of-journalists-human-rights-activists-and-dissidents/) is freedom's best friend, right? >8)
Russian Patriot Act or just a way to keep their PRISM from being exposed? Either way, that dude knows how to get $#!* done!
And the USA is any different these day's.
47
United States of America
142
Russia
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html
Interesting index, thanks buu. I'm not entirely convinced that coming in #47 is something we should be proud of...
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-13, 11:57am
It's a country, it's no more a prison than the U.S. which I do often think of as an open air prison (only it's not all open air, Putin can't compare to the percentage of our population in prison - we're #1! USA! USA! USA!). The thing about the Russians is they strike me as a deeply down to earth people (that is a very positive assesment incidently). This is life and that's what it is. If they live in a corrupt dictatorship, I doubt they pretend otherwise, and pretend they live in the free-est greatest country on earth. Information control is the U.S. is mostly more subtle than overt censorship.
Interesting index, thanks buu. I'm not entirely convinced that coming in #47 is something we should be proud of...
Folks often suggest others move to Finland or Norway for one reason or another (often these days having to do with the superior affordable healthcare available in those nations) and yet folks generally resist such suggestions, because making any such decisions based on only one characteristic is foolish. #47 is actually a decent ranking for this, especially given for how many things our nation ranks highly.
Yossarian
7-25-13, 12:55pm
Interesting index, thanks buu. I'm not entirely convinced that coming in #47 is something we should be proud of...
I'm not entirely convinced it's all that valid a list.
Folks often suggest others move to Finland or Norway for one reason or another (often these days having to do with the superior affordable healthcare available in those nations) and yet folks generally resist such suggestions, because making any such decisions based on only one characteristic is foolish. #47 is actually a decent ranking for this, especially given for how many things our nation ranks highly.
#47 - but it's in also designated in freefall, so that number will likely drop further quickly
Folks often suggest others move to Finland or Norway for one reason or another (often these days having to do with the superior affordable healthcare available in those nations) and yet folks generally resist such suggestions, because making any such decisions based on only one characteristic is foolish. #47 is actually a decent ranking for this, especially given for how many things our nation ranks highly.
I'm one that has no desire to relocate based on any single criterion, or for that matter most combinations of several. Nonetheless, and regardless of the validity of this particular list, I would prefer the US to rank near the very top when it comes to freedom of the press. It is, after all, the very first of our freedoms to be protected by the Bill of Rights. I just think we should do a better job of remembering that.
#47 - but it's in also designated in freefall, so that number will likely drop further quicklyCall me when it descends below Russia. Until then, it sounds like people are contorting themselves in order to experience some kind of vacuous glee about Russia's "freedom".
!Splat!
#47 - but it's in also designated in freefall, so that number will likely drop further quickly
The report is pretty vague about how they score but apparently they got their panties in a bunch over Occupy Wall Street.
The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation
Well, so far at least, it's Snowden and the Snowmen from Mars 1, Authoritarian Cretins 0.
Go Snowmen!
Oh dear, I hope "Authoritarian Cretins" isn't on the NSA's list ....
It is a little strange seeing so many Americans responding with glee to Vladimir Putin's crapping on the United States. But heck, it's a free country and Americans can regard anti-American manner positively with impunity.
I'm not particularly gleeful about the idea that an American whistleblower felt the need to seek asylum from Putin. Instead I find it rather ironic and somewhat more than slightly sad that America has reached the point where that ended up being the best, and really, the only option Snowden had.
The only country strong enough to take a chance at defecating on the United States.
Why do you find that ironic? And: Why do you think that's changed? It seems to me that this has been the case since at least since the establishment of the USSR.
Instead I find it rather ironic and somewhat more than slightly sad that America has reached the point where that ended up being the best, and really, the only option Snowden had.
It is ironic. You know the Russians are getting info from him. You can't claim to be acting on behalf of freedom when you are supporting governments like Russia. I don't feel sorry for him.
It is ironic. You know the Russians are getting info from him. You can't claim to be acting on behalf of freedom when you are supporting governments like Russia. I don't feel sorry for him.
Pretty much how I've come to feel about him as well. It's difficult to imagine the Russians are just patiently waiting for him to make up his mind without asking for something in return. Snowden could have wrapped himself in a high profile ACLU cocoon right here in the US. The level of media coverage for his case would have forced the government to play fair. Instead he decided, apparently on his own, to traipse off to Hong Kong and points beyond. He exhausted his own options and now has to deal with the consequences.
I think Snowden knew that he'd have been treated fairly here, and that that wouldn't have served him well. He might have been overly-optimistic about his prospects out there in the big wide world, but I think he knew that a fair implementation of justice here would have imposed sanctions on him that he didn't want to abide.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-13, 11:08am
I think the Russians probably are getting information for him, and that situation was partly created by the U.S.. They left him no other options for asylum, they wouldn't let him leave. I think the Russians are getting the information out of him now that we the people aren't, because the guardian has discussions with the NSA before releasing stuff now apparently. My goodness, we're screwed.
I don't see any room for doubt regarding his overestimation of asylum prospects and I suppose its true that he doesn't want to end up in Leavenworth for 50 years. Who would? He's no Nelson Mandela, but by all indication the guy is smart enough to have figured out that his actions, regardless of any altruistic motive, were criminal. I don't think there is much room for creative interpretation of terms like "classified" or "top secret" or whatever other terminology was used in conjunction with his day to day tasks. It would, at some level, be disappointing if Snowden's actions were really only a cry for attention. Disappointing, but probably not that far fetched. In any case he's caught in a vortex of his own creation.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-13, 11:16am
[It would, at some level, be disappointing if Snowden's actions were really only a cry for attention. Disappointing, but probably not that far fetched.
Yes it's far fetched. It's not even a slightly believable read of any psychology I'd recognize as human frankly. If it was a novel, the writer would have to do no end of work to convince one of that motive. Inborn need for attention, sure, but it's pretty rare indeed for this to take precedence over survival.
ANM, you changed your message while I was typing, but with regard to your prior reference to the "right thing to do", I have a hard time seeing how giving the Chinese and Russians access to US intelligence info is the "right" thing. They are not bastions of human rights.
Inborn need for attention, sure, but it's pretty rare indeed for this to take precedence over survival.
True, assuming Snowden initially considered survival to be at stake. His fight or flight choices look to me to be those of someone who was caught off guard by the intensity of the response to his actions, not those of someone who carefully considered all the angles (including possible threats to survival).
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-13, 11:54am
Yea, I recognize doing something because you think it's the right thing to do as at least a recognizable motive (much more believable that risking everything for attention which doesn't sound believable). No I don't strongly idealize human nature (maybe a little bit :)), but there are believable and unbelievable motives ... and choosing possible imprisonment and death for attention ... does not seem credible.
ANM, you changed your message while I was typing, but with regard to your prior reference to the "right thing to do", I have a hard time seeing how giving the Chinese and Russians access to US intelligence info is the "right" thing. These are not bastions of human rights.
The intent was to give the U.S. citizens (and possibly citizens of the world) access. If the intent was just to give the Russians and Chinese access, there are much more discrete ways to do that - he could have gone directly to their spy agencies. I think the cards were played wrong, probably by trusting mainstream journalism, because I doubt the people will ever get the full picture at this point (the NSA involved in talking to the guardian about their releases kinda makes that case), and yes I think Russia will.
It is ironic. You know the Russians are getting info from him. You can't claim to be acting on behalf of freedom when you are supporting governments like Russia. I don't feel sorry for him. Ditto. And you can bet the Russians won't be letting him use his IT skills to get anywhere near THEIR intelligence data.
I don't see any room for doubt regarding his overestimation of asylum prospects and I suppose its true that he doesn't want to end up in Leavenworth for 50 years. Who would? He's no Nelson Mandela, but by all indication the guy is smart enough to have figured out that his actions, regardless of any altruistic motive, were criminal. I don't think there is much room for creative interpretation of terms like "classified" or "top secret" or whatever other terminology was used in conjunction with his day to day tasks. It would, at some level, be disappointing if Snowden's actions were really only a cry for attention. Disappointing, but probably not that far fetched. In any case he's caught in a vortex of his own creation. And given Bradley Manning's charges (justified IMHO) Snowden is probably pretty happy being anywhere but here. Just surprised that Russia wouldn't extradite him though and taint our relations with them but we'll see what happens in a year.
I think Russia probably will end up sending Snowden home....when they're through with him.
And then justice will be served.
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 12:35am
It gives struggling people hope to see Russia give the middle finger salute to the country that embodies that system that causes them to struggle. This is why I believe so many Americans support Putin's decision. My take on this is God help us if there is ever a war that comes to our shores - many will bail as many have lost faith and are just bluffing through day by day. Just my two cents. Rob
I meant to add this to a post of BUU's but for some reason it didn't work that way.
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 12:46am
I personally don't consider Snowden's actions criminal. I am aware that on paper, yes, a fairly good argument could be made that they were using textbook definitions and the "law". The reason I put the parenthesis around the law was to imply sarcasm. Much like the law is a flexible concept in Mexico, it seems to be in the US in some occasions, too. Had the US not done this spying that Mr. Snowden leaked to the world - spying that many are considering unconstitutional and quite hypocritical - there would have been no drama for Mr. Snowden to star in. I lay the blame on the person/entity that drew first blood - in this case, the US. There is no excuse for this level of spying without first at least informing the citizenry that they are vulnerable to such. Rob
You're talking about what you wish was the law, not what the law actually is. While yes some aspects of the law are mutable in practice. In another thread I read this morning we're talking about whether it is constitutional to have "In God We Trust" on money. It's not, of course, but the SCOTUS says it is so effectively it is. So things aren't perfect.
But in the Snowden case, there is no equivocation. The law is clear. Snowden explicitly acknowledged and agreed to the legitimacy of the law personally before all this happened. Therefore, Snowden's direct and specific betrayal of the commitment he made to comply with the law is clear.
Beyond that, this country has laws that govern how and when public disclosures are made. You want - want - those laws to comply with your own personal preferences, but that's an unreasonable expectation. Claiming that the nation's actions are in some way not legal because you personally don't like them is unreasonable, bordering on ridiculous. You aren't king. You aren't God. You're just one citizen. We have processes in place for determining what the law is. It was complied with.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Americans voted for representatives who strongly support those laws. It is only in the vacuous issue-specific, drunken-stupor-of-riotous-incitement polls that that the surveillance receives low marks - i.e., support for Snowden's action only is seen to prevail in situations where people don't have to stand up and defend their vote and its impact on the security of the nation overall.
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-13, 5:53am
It gives struggling people hope to see Russia give the middle finger salute to the country that embodies that system that causes them to struggle. This is why I believe so many Americans support Putin's decision.
I don't see Russia as being better, maybe at best less imperialistic at present (because they don't' have the capacity frankly - if they could and had they need to they would). The big players Russia, China, the U.S. are just competing power blocks - ALL of which are semi-totalitarian and none of which are good guys. There aren't any good guys except perhaps some insignificant countries and of course individuals (nah not Europe - they're not actually a union but just a U.S. colony it turns out - that's what the Morales thing showed).
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 7:48am
Buu - sorry for some reason I can't get the reply to work so you can see that I have replied to what you have posted.
I don't disagree in theory with what you have posted. Where I have trouble is that if Snowden was made to go along with things that are unconstitutional in order to keep his contract/job/income whatever - and he decided he couldn't work within that framework, I don't see his actions as criminal. Perhaps it be can proven in a court of law that they are and I don't even disagree with you that they could. The problem here is that my perception and it seems that the perception of many is that Snowden really didn't do any wrong and should be respected for his actions. There are those who take it further and say he is a hero - that far for myself I won't go.
It could be proven in a court of law all day that Snowden broke the law. I, however, don't agree with this and I take it I'm not alone in this. What this shows to me, personally, is that there are many out there who just don't trust the system any further than they could throw it. And this is INTERNALLY - this is an inside job. For those who believe in the system, I can see where this might seem a bit scary. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 7:56am
APN - I like your take on the Morales thing.....but I counter it with the fact that the German government has publicly said that Snowden deserves respect and apparently some Germans have been protesting in the streets against US spying.
I don't see Russia as any better either. Though if Russia is trying to flex some muscle, do some payback, score some international points for humanitarianism - the score right now since the Snowden event seems to me to be Russia 1, US 0, with the ball being in the court of the US. Will be interesting I think to see where the US goes with this.....not showing at a G-20 Summit doesn't seem to have quite the UMPHF to it that giving Snowden one year's asylum does. I think it will be interesting to see if some Cold War Style childishness ensues.
Though I believe Snowden didn't do anything wrong and should not be forced to stand trial, and though I am thankful to Russia for the one year's reprieve granted to Snowden, I am sure they did not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. There must be something in it for them, besides the middle finger salute and the biceps flex. Rob
I don't disagree in theory with what you have posted. Where I have trouble is that if Snowden was made to go along with things that are unconstitutional ...You're starting your comment assuming facts not in evidence. You cannot possibly reach a defensible conclusion that way.
I don't see his actions as criminal.Again: Your conclusion is based on myriad factors, none of which actually have standing. His actions were criminal, based on all objective and duly authorized means of determining so. Snowden himself acknowledged and accepted that such actions would be criminal if he were to undertake them, before he was hired. Neither your personal preference nor his after-the-fact repudiation of what he committed to overcomes the truth of what the law actually is.
Perhaps it be can proven in a court of law that they are and I don't even disagree with you that they could.It goes beyond that: The injection of your own personal preference, over the law, and over the SCOTUS and other duly authorized courts, over all due process, doesn't make opinion actually have standing in the matter of whether the actions were criminal or not. They were criminal. It's a fact based on evidence, not an opinion based on emotion.
The proper and defensible response to this situation, by folks who feel as you feel, is to say, "I don't like the law." Or "I want the law to be changed so that in the future things will be different." I know why critics avoid that approach though: It doesn't provide the false sense of justification for wanting Snowden to escape justice. It doesn't make for flashy headlines that get people's blood boiling, like factually inaccurate exhortations like, "The surveillance is unconstitutional!" does. It doesn't play as well to the mob.
What this shows to me, personally, is that there are many out there who just don't trust the system any further than they could throw it.And conveniently, such attitudes are fostered by vacuous and objectively inaccurate claims that the surveillance is unconstitutional.
It gives struggling people hope to see Russia give the middle finger salute to the country that embodies that system that causes them to struggle.
Sorry Rob, I can't seem to follow this. Which system is it that is causing people to struggle?
Where I have trouble is that if Snowden was made to go along with things that are unconstitutional in order to keep his contract/job/income whatever - and he decided he couldn't work within that framework, I don't see his actions as criminal.
If he was morally opposed to the requirements of his position he should have quit and stated such in his resignation letter. Mr. Snowden was not "made" to do anything. He took the job of his own free will. He also agreed to abide by the rules that applied to the position prior to accepting it. If he was opposed to the work in the beginning he should not have accepted the job. If that came later he should have quit the job. He did not handle the situation correctly....or legally.
Though I believe Snowden didn't do anything wrong and should not be forced to stand trial, and though I am thankful to Russia for the one year's reprieve granted to Snowden, I am sure they did not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. There must be something in it for them, besides the middle finger salute and the biceps flex. Rob
I'm sure Edward will be in the lap of luxury with champagne, Beluga caviar and the finest confections all on comrade Putin's tab for the next year. Or until he runs out of useful information.
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 3:01pm
I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong here.....it seems to me that there are folks here who are accepting this spying by the US government? To the point where someone who spills it to the world should be prosecuted? It seems to me the day they were passing out this quality I slept in late lol. I will never be able to support any country or government to this level. This is something I happen to like about myself. I'm thinking a reason for this is that I was raised to always have a passport and some money to run close at hand - this comes from my mom, whose first memory was the Americans flying overhead Salzburg, Austria in 1945, and people screaming at her to get into the bomb shelter in the basement of her apartment building pronto. One thing this very wise woman told me when I was ten has stuck with me all these years - never trust any government and always see things for what they are. She went on to say to be like the Jewish people that fled Europe before what happened happened - to always put my welfare over any country. Honestly, I've rarely heard such practical advice in my life since then.
Granted, things in the US today are nothing like the situation my mother was referring to. But the basic advice to me still stands. If I had kids, I would try to instill this advice in them, too. On a less dramatic level, people who think like this tend to object to wars in general. Someone who thinks like this is not going to think of the law always first but what is truly right and wrong with no thought of country.....This is not to say that I personally would break any laws, but it does mean that I am going to see such issues differently than others. And on this one, apparently I am not alone. To me, personally, this spying by the US is completely unacceptable. There is nothing I can do to change it, granted. But I don't believe this country should be let off the hook for it due to "laws" - sometimes laws are not acceptable and it is people much braver than I who do something about it. I'm much more the person with no loyalty that will run when the writing on the wall calls for it. Rob
I came back to add that I find this whole topic quite upsetting actually and am going to walk away from it for awhile to calm down.....my blood pressure going sky high is not going to change anything. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-13, 4:25pm
It seems to me the day they were passing out this quality I slept in late lol. I will never be able to support any country or government to this level.
+1000. Really :) Is it the t.v. I don't watch? The planes and their TSA that are training us for obedience I don't fly? (ok haven't been on a plane for maybe 5 years - more opposed to planes because I HATE THEM :) and for the environmental cost of them than the TSA though - but yea that too).
This is something I happen to like about myself.
+1
I'm thinking a reason for this is that I was raised to always have a passport and some money to run close at hand - this comes from my mom, whose first memory was the Americans flying overhead Salzburg, Austria in 1945, and people screaming at her to get into the bomb shelter in the basement of her apartment building pronto.
It was COMMON immigrant advice. Some people dont' feel immigrant enough to understand it, ok my parents were born here, so was I, I'm an American - like it or not, but my parent's parents gave them this type of advice. So it wasn't that long ago really ....
That said Nazi cooperating Austrians at that time or American planes, I have to say: the planes had every right to be there - go USA! But with full knowledge that modern war is *always* brutality.
One thing this very wise woman told me when I was ten has stuck with me all these years - never trust any government and always see things for what they are. She went on to say to be like the Jewish people that fled Europe before what happened happened - to always put my welfare over any country. Honestly, I've rarely heard such practical advice in my life since then.
Countries are nothing - guns and armies and the use of force plus propaganda justifying it all (at their theoretical *best* really and truly democratically accountable to the people with some basic rights protection - but there's not much of either of those around these days almost anywhere).
However individual human beings in countries you can get attached to - individual people are something! Also you may like the work you are doing in a certain country or even fall in love with the land itself in certain beautiful areas (of which this country has plenty of course) - so attachment to place as such can also be human and natural.
On a less dramatic level, people who think like this tend to object to wars in general. Someone who thinks like this is not going to think of the law always first but what is truly right and wrong with no thought of country.....This is not to say that I personally would break any laws, but it does mean that I am going to see such issues differently than others. And on this one, apparently I am not alone. To me, personally, this spying by the US is completely unacceptable. There is nothing I can do to change it, granted. But I don't believe this country should be let off the hook for it due to "laws" - sometimes laws are not acceptable and it is people much braver that I who do something about it. I'm much more the person with no loyalty that will run when the writing on the wall calls for it.
There's a place for not running, some stayed and hid Jews from the Nazis (since we're talking Nazis), but by no means is everyone a hero and running is often more practical if you don't want to live in interesting times, yea even if you're not fleeing the Nazis but just for greater economic opportunity. The other attachments mentioned above though, they can trip people up.
I came back to add that I find this whole topic quite upsetting actually and am going to walk away from it for awhile to calm down.....my blood pressure going sky high is not going to change anything.
Yea, better to work with people who agree with you probably (not on everything - on issue based organizing) - plus learn to use encryption, anonymization, etc. just to give them the finger - yea and leave the country if you want :). There are issues and people that can be persuaded and those who can't. Haha, some battles on public policy forum I won't even get involved in :). If the country has to go full totalitarian with people cheering from the sidelines, then it will - with me screaming and scratching and biting every step of the way but ... Especially referring exactly to the revelations that are the cause of all the fuss over this person in the first place - not the person, not the reactions to the reactions to the person (in endless mirrors of recursion), but just the raw leaks *themselves* - what we are allowed to see of them and what we can likely infer: everything, every piece of electronic communication likely stored.
I think its important to remember that it is entirely possible to believe Snowden should be prosecuted and at the same time believe the “President’s Surveillance Program”, as the NSA program is officially known, should be shut down. That's how I feel. From reading responses it seems there are quite a few others with similar feelings. Let me ask you this... If Snowden had leaked nuclear launch codes (impossible, I know, but hypothetical here) would anyone be saying he should not be charged? Would that be more against the law than what he did?
I think its important to remember that it is entirely possible to believe Snowden should be prosecuted and at the same time believe the “President’s Surveillance Program”, as the NSA program is officially known, should be shut down. That's how I feel. From reading responses it seems there are quite a few others with similar feelings. Let me ask you this... If Snowden had leaked nuclear launch codes (impossible, I know, but hypothetical here) would anyone be saying he should not be charged? Would that be more against the law than what he did?
I think you're right. There are two issues here, and one can hold the opinion that Mr. Snowden is a dishonorable traitor without wanting to toss the fourth amendment out the window. Just as one can hold the opinion that bombing Nazi cities in 1945 was justified without being pleased that gimmethesimplelife's three year old mother was on the ground at the time.
I think its important to remember that it is entirely possible to believe Snowden should be prosecuted and at the same time believe the “President’s Surveillance Program”, as the NSA program is officially known, should be shut down. That's how I feel. From reading responses it seems there are quite a few others with similar feelings. Let me ask you this... If Snowden had leaked nuclear launch codes (impossible, I know, but hypothetical here) would anyone be saying he should not be charged? Would that be more against the law than what he did?
Except that as far as we know that's not what he did. And nuclear launch codes aren't some illegal activity that our government is engaging in, so leaking them wouldn't have the same moral reasoning as leaking info about the government doing the seemingly illegal activity of spying on its own citizens. Based on what we've been told the actions he took pretty much fit the definition of whistleblower to a T.
And the more that comes out about this program the worse it seems to be: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ If the allegations about the DEA being given tips from the NSA and then covering up that fact by falsifying the origin of information used to go after drug dealers are true than it highlights exactly why this spying program is so wrong and needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. This is exactly an example where the ends do not justify the means.
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-13, 9:45pm
If Snowden had leaked nuclear launch codes (impossible, I know, but hypothetical here) would anyone be saying he should not be charged? Would that be more against the law than what he did?
One could just as well posit an alternative counter example, what if he'd leaked something obviously worth knowing. But without going hyperbolic I failed in my initial attempt to come up with counterexamples that were much worse than the reality - epecially the stuff revealed by the Manning leaks. Ok here's a hypothetical that might work, what if he had released the fact that the Presidential election was entirely hacked at the ballot box as well as all congressional elections that took place at the same time - making democracy a COMPLETELY moot point? Would everyone be saying he should be charged? Would it be more against the law than what he did?
If just being some level of classified, means that information should be as secret as nuclear launch codes, what's to stop the government from classifying everything it does at a certain point? The entire working of government are none of our business - we just pay for it is all - that's what we're useful for - blank checks for heaven only knows what - the black box.
iris lilies
8-5-13, 11:51pm
I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong here.....it seems to me that there are folks here who are accepting this spying by the US government? To the point where someone who spills it to the world should be prosecuted? ...
He can have performed an illegal act and still have done a service to the citizens of the U.S. by exposing the shenanigans of his agency. As others point out there are multiple issues here. I don't like the spying and think it is stupid and leading to no good, but is that "accepting" it? I'm not hiring a small plane and heading it toward the White House as one means of protest.
And as far a "constitutionality" goes, just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, and vice verse.
As I said previously, and I still stand by this: a lot of fuss about nothing really, and people who are "shocked, shocked to find spying going on here" are a bit precious....
I don't have enough information on the particulars of Snowden's actions to render an opinion.
That said, anyone who didn't understand that this was going on for decades wasn't playing very close attention. My last two startup companies made huge distributed data storage systems. One of our largest customers at both companies was always the NSA, usually a large enough chunk of our business that it typically got listed in our SEC filings. Any foreign intelligence service with a brain and a calculator could have figured out why the NSA might be procuring monumental quantities of data storage/mining gear....
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-13, 12:57am
So what if some info was out there? Does that mean people who don't keep up to date on one aspect of the bottomless hole of corruption, the secret wars and the secret laws and the secret trade treaties and the secret black-sites and the secret tax havens and the secret economics (lots of things - the extent of worldwide bailouts for instance), which are all only half secret, but try making them the issue of an election for anyone but 3rd party candidates noone cares about, have somehow agreed to such?
You didn't read the terms and conditions - see it was all there in the fine print. And have we agreed for all time until the sun burns out, or there are no more bad people on earth? amen? I know it's a feature of the present, sure, that's just plain old reality, but it is for more reasons than just some failure of omniscience in the past. Those who manage to keep up on everything and follow every rabbit hole down are usually conspiracy theorists - I mean no disrespect to them - but they are the only one's with THAT MUCH passion.
"Some info"? It's been available freely since the 1980s, and no secret at all in the computing industry since then.
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-13, 2:26am
I thought you meant mostly various stuff that has been coming out since the W administration - the well known telecom spying, AT&T and so on, but sure also Thomas Drake's leaks, dribbles here, dribbles there, catch enough of them in a rain barrel and I suppose you could eventually get the idea (the full picture which we don't have even with these latest leaks - we don't even have most of the Prism slides).
I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong here.....it seems to me that there are folks here who are accepting this spying by the US government?That's a little like "accepting" a Black man is President. Not accepting a reality as reality isn't going to help anything. If what you're aiming at this is being in support of or opposition to the government collecting and analyzing telephone call patterns, I trust United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding whether there is a compelling need for that data or not, more than disgruntled former intelligent analysts, political hacks in Congress, or even former members of FISC who are unhappy that their opinion didn't prevail in the legal discussions.
To the point where someone who spills it to the world should be prosecuted?I'm not sure if you've ever held a security clearance or not, but I feel that if you had you'd not make such a statement.
I will never be able to support any country or government to this level.This all comes before supporting the nation or its government. We're still talking about living up to the obligations you committed to, acting honorably in the context of a conflicted situation. The honorable act, as was mentioned earlier, was to reveal your conflict, report your concerns to the proper authorities, and then detach from the situation, maintaining the secrecy you committed to maintain. The alternative, each person being their own sovereign nation (which despite claims to the contrary, is the alternative) is unsustainable.
I came back to add that I find this whole topic quite upsetting actually and am going to walk away from it for awhile to calm down.....my blood pressure going sky high is not going to change anything. RobIt is an upsetting topic. Rest assured that everyone is upset. As you can tell from what I've written above, my concern emanates from the betrayal by Snowden, and how that lack of honor could endanger American lives.
I think its important to remember that it is entirely possible to believe Snowden should be prosecuted and at the same time believe the “President’s Surveillance Program”, as the NSA program is officially known, should be shut down. Precisely. There are positive and negative aspects of the NSA program, that balance against each other, and it is reasonable to think reasonable people disagree about which way the balance settles out. What I don't want to see is people being allowed to tip the scale in their direction by engaging in scurrilous electioneering in the media, but that's life I suppose. Regardless, if the decision, in due course via due process, is to end the program, then I'll support that as much as I support the program today. There is a difference between supporting what's right and supporting changes to it for the future. In a community with others, you have to be able to separate the two, rather than presuming to operate under the illusion that what you want is how things are at the time.
Let me ask you this... If Snowden had leaked nuclear launch codes (impossible, I know, but hypothetical here) would anyone be saying he should not be charged? Would that be more against the law than what he did?That's a great example, given that there are nations-full of reasonable people that object to nuclear weapons as a matter of course. Their intention to eliminate all nuclear weapons should be admired for its tenacity if nothing else, even by hawks, but that doesn't mean they're righteous in operating as if their way is the only right way everywhere right now.
And nuclear launch codes aren't some illegal activity that our government is engaging inNeither is the surveillance authorized by the FISC.
He can have performed an illegal act and still have done a service to the citizens of the U.S. by exposing the shenanigans of his agency.When others have done that (think: Gandhi; Martin Luther King, Jr.), they honorably submitted themselves to suffer the legal consequences of their action (imprisonment).
Side comment: Is anyone as intrigued as I am at just how on-the-mark the television series Person of Interest is? :)
Neither is the surveillance authorized by the FISC.
And surveilance of Americans communicating to other Americans within the US and sharing that with other US law enforcement agencies such as the DEA, which apparently is happening, is not under the purview of the FISC, and therefore not something they can authorize.
Let's stick with the issue that this thread is about: NSA surveillance, for which there is either sufficient evidence thereof, and for which the facts of the matter isn't generally considered in dispute.
You can start another thread to discuss the DEA issue, if you wish. (I'll wait to see evidence of what's being alleged, by whom, and based on what evidence, before I choose to comment on that, except perhaps to criticize assuming that the accusations are true without evidence in hand.)
considering that the dea reportedly got some of their info from the nsa surveilance of communications by Americans in America, at least according to Reuters, I'd consider it entirely relevant.
considering that the dea reportedly got some of their info from the nsa surveilance of communications by Americans in America, at least according to Reuters, I'd consider it entirely relevant.
My wife worked some decades ago recovering funds from agents of a foreign government that had assassinated US citizens, union organizers, here in the USA, in Seattle actually. Some of the evidence in the civil case that led to the judgment came from ONI dropping a dime on one of the other three-letter organizations that was working way off the reservation and that had deliberately provided intelligence info to the foreign government which made the assassination easier...
This is about the time my wife started carrying a gun all the time :-(
Spooky stuff bae. Not particularly surprising, but spooky nonetheless.
considering that the dea reportedly got some of their info from the nsa surveilance of communications by Americans in America, at least according to Reuters, I'd consider it entirely relevant.
I'm not sure it makes that much difference if one government agency shares info with another government agency. On one hand I'm glad they saved our tax dollars by not each having their own surveillance program. :moon: On the serious side this type of surveillance of citizens without cause by ANY government agency needs to stop. And at least as disturbing, the compiling of data to be mined as needed later also needs to stop.
Remember when the constitution guaranteed us the right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause? Good times...
gimmethesimplelife
8-6-13, 10:09pm
Alan don't be shocked here, ok? But on this one I could not agree more with you.....Rob
Remember when the constitution guaranteed us the right to be secure in our persons, papers and effects and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause? Good times...
The Constitution never guaranteed that - those are just words on parchment.
What guaranteed our rights was our demonstrated willingness and ability to water the fields of America with the blood of English and Hessian soldiers.
I don't think most of today's Americans are made of the same stuff, and I suspect they'll happily plod along into the same sort of surveillance society Britain has today, and be happy to be "safe" from the threats posed by Eastasia.
Just sayin'.
Yes, Alan, such happy memories...
iris lilies
8-6-13, 11:51pm
I agree with both Alan and bae, but that's nothing new.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-13, 12:11am
What if whistleblowering is the modern day version of watering the fields, and whistleblowers are made of the same stuff. When you whistleblow at 23 and get a lifetime prison sentence (Manning) what else is that but throwing your life away (in any *meaningful* sense - a life in literal prison is no life at all) for a cause? And so very young (I saw the Greenwald speech on "courage is contagious" - yea the one for the socialists supposedly - where he said he initially thought Snowden was older, well yea when you whistleblow at 60 you have at least lived first).
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-13, 3:16am
And on the seizure part of search and seizure and the 4th amendment, there is this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all
Until you realize reading about politics these days is just reading a giant encyclopedia of never ending human viciousness, malevolence, corruption, scumbaggery, rottenness .... just 10,000 pages of taxonomy of evil in every form and variation imaginable, the karma sutra of it. No wonder it's depressing. Blah, who wants that, pretty soon you're all: come Armageddon, come Armageddon, come ....
But there are lights, like whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers with honor don't flee to Russia.
gimmethesimplelife
8-7-13, 7:11am
bUU - I don't know that staying in the US would be honorable - any more than fleeing the US is honorable. I don't see honor having anything to do with this situation period. In my mind honor is not involved. I respect Snowden for what he did, and I respect him for fleeing, too. As I've said, I don't think he did anything wrong, regardless of what he agreed to beforehand, due to the extreme nature of what he chose to reveal. Obviously, the US has issues with his leaking this information, and though I can't know what is going on in Snowden's mind, I'm guessing (?) he thinks he didn't do anything wrong, either. If this is the case - and like I said, I have no way of knowing what is going through this man's mind - it seems very practical for him to flee. If he believes he did no wrong - and it seems that in the American public it's polling at 50/50 roughly whether or not Snowden should be prosecuted - it only seems practical that the man would remove himself from US jurisdiction. I find the man to be very human, and the attempts at asylum to be quite practical. But as I have said, I have been raised to trust no country or government, and I understand that many are not going to see things this way. I'm very surprised - and I mean very surprised - the public polling shows so many Americans thinking Snowden did nothing wrong.....I find hope in this actually. To me this shows that some people are thinking. Rob
The Constitution never guaranteed that - those are just words on parchment.
What guaranteed our rights was our demonstrated willingness and ability to water the fields of America with the blood of English and Hessian soldiers.
I don't think most of today's Americans are made of the same stuff, and I suspect they'll happily plod along into the same sort of surveillance society Britain has today, and be happy to be "safe" from the threats posed by Eastasia.
Just sayin'.
That's a good point. Our birthright's only exist as long as we are hardy enough to stand up to those who would deny them.
bUU - I don't know that staying in the US would be honorable - and more than fleeing the US is honorable.That is the whole context of the disagreement. I've already mentioned two honorable protesters that stood firm, made their case, and took the consequences of their action. You haven't yet mentioned one person that anyone admires decades later, after the irrational emotion wears off, who betrayed a confidence that they had promised to keep, ran, and hid in a foreign nation, a nation that cannot even remotely be presented as neutral. My perspective is supported by historic analogy. So far, the only things I see supporting your perspective is personal preference: Reasonable people will always disagree with each other, so that's not surprising.
Another point that gets lost in this: People who feel as you do want the NSA surveillance to end. Well, guess what? NSA surveillance continues with the FISC blessing. The whipping-up of mob mentality by critics in Congress and the media (for their own aggrandizement, incidentally) will probably succeed only in making minor changes to the policies, and most importantly, will leave Snowden's action definitively illegal, vis a vis anyone else who follows, which is the opposite of what those glorifying Snowden want. His craven action, running from justice, means he doesn't get his day in court, doesn't get a chance to put on trial the way whistleblowers like him are regarded by the system, etc. That's why it's dishonorable: It undercuts the values that he claims to believe in, and does nothing to blaze a safer trail for those who would come after him.
I don't see honor having anything to do with this situation period. In my mind honor is not involved. I believe an honorable person would have to ignore the matter of honor to take a position defending Snowden's actions. It is your right to do so. It doesn't actually mean that betraying a sworn obligation and breaking a specified law isn't a matter of honor. It is, even if you choose not to want to consider it as such, and I bet that if that same mechanics were present in some other context, a context where your personal preference didn't sway you, then you'd agree. Unfortunately, there's no way to test that, since any such inquiries now would be influenced by the realization of how the analogy would impact the regard of Snowden's actions.
I respect Snowden for what he did, and I respect him for fleeing, too.Short of engaging in rhetorical games, in this one sentence you contradicted your contention that honor is not involved twice. What needs to be understood is that it makes sense to respect Snowden for what he did - reasonable people disagree about whether the surveillance should be going on or not - but, with respect, it doesn't actually make sense to respect him for fleeing. There is no generally-accepted tenet of honor that fosters such an appraisal of that action.
As I've said, I don't think he did anything wrongAnd I fear that that's governing some of your other conclusions.
I'm very surprised - and I mean very surprised - the public polling shows so many Americans thinking Snowden did nothing wrong...Americans are collectively depressed due to how anemic the recovery has been, and therefore are collectively looking for Goliaths to take down. It's a pretty standard sociological pattern.
Whistleblowers with honor don't flee to Russia.
"He who fights and runs away, may live to fight another day." If there was a reasonable expectation he would be treated fairly turning himself in (as in weighing what he did vs. what the NSA has been doing, how else can one validate an incidence of whistleblowing), it might be different, but there is no reasonable expectation that he would be.
"He who fights and runs away, may live to fight another day."A cousin to "There's a sucker born every minute," and other maxims of self-serving opportunism. It is not a maxim of honorable protest, by any well-established standards thereof. If people are really going to start passing off whatever principles best serve their own personal interest in the moment as "honor", then we can safely say that honor no longer exists and all that is left is egoism and exploitation.
If there was a reasonable expectation he would be treated fairly turning himself in (as in weighing what he did vs. what the NSA has been doing, how else can one validate an incidence of whistleblowing), it might be different, but there is no reasonable expectation that he would be.Of course he would have been fairly treated by the courts, especially with as much scrutiny as would have been directed at the process if he had turned himself in after releasing the disclosures instead of running. I think what you're saying is that even fair justice would have put him in jail for a long time, because fair justice wouldn't have agreed that his whistleblowing was justifiable under the current law.
If people don't like the current law, then change it. Don't define fairness as "complying with laws as I want them to be".
A cousin to "There's a sucker born every minute," and other maxims of self-serving opportunism. It is not a maxim of honorable protest, by any well-established standards thereof. If people are really going to start passing off whatever principles best serve their own personal interest in the moment as "honor", then we can safely say that honor no longer exists and all that is left is egoism and exploitation.
Of course he would have been fairly treated by the courts, especially with as much scrutiny as would have been directed at the process if he had turned himself in after releasing the disclosures instead of running. I think what you're saying is that even fair justice would have put him in jail for a long time, because fair justice wouldn't have agreed that his whistleblowing was justifiable under the current law.
If people don't like the current law, then change it. Don't define fairness as "complying with laws as I want them to be".
I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of a fair trial - anymore than if he was a whistleblower of a private company and the private company got to run the trial. Validating a whistleblower requires putting the other party in the wrong - if there is no validation for whistleblowing, then it is just a crime. I don't think our government would let itself be put in the position of being in the wrong, whether it was or not, and there would be a conflict of interest having them be the ones to dispense justice.
Just for the fun of inserting a conspiracy theory... it makes sense that the government wanted Snowden to be granted asylum somewhere. If he's stuck there he won't be on trial here. If he's not on trial here then the NSA isn't on trial either and no one has to talk so all the other dirty little secrets will remain secret. If that was the goal could there possibly be a more cherry picked asylum location than Russia? The US would just go get him (diplomatically or otherwise) if he went almost anywhere else, but we won't touch Russia. Ok, its even more than that. Would Putin really risk US/Russian relations over an IT specialist? And if Putin was trying to give Obama the finger why would he say Snowden could stay as long as he quits leaking information? I'm guessing John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov were working on this one before Snowden hit Hong Kong. Putin looks good for standing up to the US. Obama looks good for taking a hard line on whistleleakers. Snowden goes away. The NSA doesn't. Everybody wins. Oh, well, everybody except for the rest of us.
Then there's the idea that Snowden was a wikileaks plant from the beginning...
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-13, 2:04pm
The measure of non-violent dissent is always what it acheives and in the service of what, not whether all i's are dotted and t's crossed in the rulebook made by the rulers (uh I made non-violent clear here for very good reasons - so anyone who argues violence in response to this can go get bent). That the powers that be rulebook is as self-serving as can be (since we're talking self-serving) surprises exactly noone. Self-serving is never in some people opinions 1000 little crony capitalists corporations that *profit* (I mean literal corporate profit!!!!) off spying - no could not be - that's just a good honest days work. Pay no attention to that accountant behind the curtains.
As for the desire to see fields watered with blood - well unlike that fantasy, whistleblowers are actually REAL, they actually exist in the here and now, and must be dealt with conceptually as reality. The fantasy is mostly that, a distraction from reality, if things can not be acheived in conditions of peace (ie build a left-right civil liberties coalition for instance), what makes you think they will be acheived by war by the cleansing power of blood? But but the system is entirely corrupt almost beyond reform and therefore ... I know it's corrupt, let's turn our gaze away from Washington and outward toward this country. If you can't build popular peaceful either opposition, coalition building, calls and proposals for reform OR peaceful undermining of this corrupt system, what makes you think war won't just be not revolutionary but civil war? Just what we need people killing each other based on party identification.
A Wikileaks plant is just the most bizarre conspiracy ever that makes little sense (so why would Wikileaks do that? to promote their brand?). FWIW I toyed with the idea he was a government plant (for some acronym agency or other) - ie psychops, false flag, disinformation - since what he revealed mostly wasn't entirely new. But I really don't think he is. I don't strongly relate to him personally, whom I think I absolutely love as a personality is Manning. But that has little to do with the political issues.
considering that the dea reportedly got some of their info from the nsa surveilance of communications by Americans in America, at least according to Reuters, I'd consider it entirely relevant.
The DEA is part of a 16 member US Intelligence community - which includes the NSA and even the tiny Coast Guard Intelligence unit - that was enacted preciecly to share intelligence data between them. So you are correct to assume that most intelligence data - no matter how it is obtained - is shared between many agencies.
What if whistleblowering is the modern day version of watering the fields, and whistleblowers are made of the same stuff. When you whistleblow at 23 and get a lifetime prison sentence (Manning) what else is that but throwing your life away (in any *meaningful* sense - a life in literal prison is no life at all) for a cause? And so very young (I saw the Greenwald speech on "courage is contagious" - yea the one for the socialists supposedly - where he said he initially thought Snowden was older, well yea when you whistleblow at 60 you have at least lived first).
While I agree in part that Snowden's action can be called whistleblowing - i.e. alerting the public to invasive surveillance programs by the feds - I consider Manning's actions to be treasonous espionage of the highest order. He voluntarily joined the military during time of war and yet felt it was justified to send seven hundred thousand classified mi,itary documents to wikileaks. No heroic whistleblower IMHO.
Just for the fun of inserting a conspiracy theory... it makes sense that the government wanted Snowden to be granted asylum somewhere. If he's stuck there he won't be on trial here. If he's not on trial here then the NSA isn't on trial either and no one has to talk so all the other dirty little secrets will remain secret. If that was the goal could there possibly be a more cherry picked asylum location than Russia? The US would just go get him (diplomatically or otherwise) if he went almost anywhere else, but we won't touch Russia. Ok, its even more than that. Would Putin really risk US/Russian relations over an IT specialist? And if Putin was trying to give Obama the finger why would he say Snowden could stay as long as he quits leaking information? I'm guessing John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov were working on this one before Snowden hit Hong Kong. Putin looks good for standing up to the US. Obama looks good for taking a hard line on whistleleakers. Snowden goes away. The NSA doesn't. Everybody wins. Oh, well, everybody except for the rest of us.
Then there's the idea that Snowden was a wikileaks plant from the beginning... Good point Gregg. Maybe dear old Uncle Sam is actually paying Russia to keep Snow den there - women, cavier and vodka? :-) - so that the NSA isn't put on trial. Of course he may still be shipped of to the Gulag once those US dollars dry up :-)
gimmethesimplelife
8-7-13, 2:56pm
Gregg - interesting theory. For all we know that may be it.....Rob
.... whom I think I absolutely love as a personality is Manning. But that has little to do with the political issues.
Manning was a troubled young man, looking for an opportunity to damage his perceived oppressors. I find him despicable.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-13, 3:19pm
it makes sense that the government wanted Snowden to be granted asylum somewhere. If he's stuck there he won't be on trial here. If he's not on trial here then the NSA isn't on trial either and no one has to talk so all the other dirty little secrets will remain secret.
isn't it easier than that to keep a trial somewhat secret? Don't you just deny most media rights to cover the trial? (done with Manning) Doesn't that pretty much cover it? As long as no mainstream media organizations make it their focus, people lose interest, civil libertarians rant away at each other on the net about how bad things are - nothing is really changed. Do you really imagine it would be like the Zimmerman trial, a media circus? But that trial was actually favored by the powers that be (pushed by the Obama admin, wasn't it?).
Obama looks good for taking a hard line on whistleleakers.
He actually looks good to pretty much nobody especially outside the U.S.. Yes the U.S. projects the raw dominence of being more powerful and able to have their way on that basis still. But the moral credibility they have lost in the long run probably more than offsets it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-13, 3:28pm
Manning was a troubled young man, looking for an opportunity to damage his perceived oppressors.
I think he objected to innocent people being killed, and the wars not being the force for good he was initially told they were (they usually aren't - it's the oldest lie of them all), and that's what drove him off the reservation. Perceived oppressors are pretty meaningless compared to real dead civilians.
As for the desire to see fields watered with blood - well unlike that fantasy,
Did anyone here express that desire?
I simply in my post referred to the historical reality. Do they still teach history in the government schools these days?
isn't it easier than that to keep a trial somewhat secret?
No, I don't think so.
Do they still teach history in the government schools these days?
No, I don't think so.
ApatheticNoMore
8-8-13, 12:44am
You know I might take an interest in? Historical examples that could actually be applied constructively to the present. Not those that if applied to the present would almost certainly make it even worse.
I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of a fair trial - anymore than if he was a whistleblower of a private company and the private company got to run the trial.That logic argues against ever having a government - period. We'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.
If he's stuck there he won't be on trial here. If he's not on trial here then the NSA isn't on trial either and no one has to talk so all the other dirty little secrets will remain secret.Surely that's the impact, and that gets back to one of the reasons I labeled his action craven, earlier.
You know I might take an interest in? Historical examples that could actually be applied constructively to the present.I provided two examples of exposing the indefensible nature of a government's policy, earlier, but I suspect people who want to defend Snowden choose to refuse to acknowledge that analogy isn't tautology and therefore won't grant the relevance of any analogy that doesn't involve an IT contractor revealing secrets about surveillance.
The DEA is part of a 16 member US Intelligence community - which includes the NSA and even the tiny Coast Guard Intelligence unit - that was enacted preciecly to share intelligence data between them. So you are correct to assume that most intelligence data - no matter how it is obtained - is shared between many agencies.
Overall that makes sense and I suppose most of us assumed that was the case, but I didn't realize there were16 in the group! I would have come up with 8 or maybe 10. All of a sudden its feeling a little oppressive in here. Thanks for the inside view Spartana!
...women, cavier and vodka? :-)
You'd think that would temp quite a few more whistleleakers! Guessing the government wouldn't want to make it too cushy for Edward, just enough to keep him quiet until the lime light fades and then...
A Wikileaks plant is just the most bizarre conspiracy ever that makes little sense (so why would Wikileaks do that? to promote their brand?). FWIW I toyed with the idea he was a government plant (for some acronym agency or other) - ie psychops, false flag, disinformation - since what he revealed mostly wasn't entirely new. But I really don't think he is.
I don't think its completely nonsensical to believe Snowden was tied to a broadcast source from the beginning. Wikileaks, the Guardian, Russia and several others could fit the bill as a sideline employer. Not to mention the publishers of the world who show up after the fact. He did amass four hard drives worth of records in three months, afterall. You have to be pretty focused on a goal to do that. We all love to believe our whistleleakers are heroic figures sacrificing everything for the greater good, but people have done a lot less for money...
And as for getting a fair trial I think Snowden could expect that from the courts, but it would be curious to see which venue he ended up in. Arbitrary justice anyone? Judge and jury aside, his trial in the over-manipulated media would certainly be a circus freak show.
gimmethesimplelife
8-8-13, 9:51pm
About this whole Snowden affair.....Ok so he has a year's reprieve effective this past July 31st. Great. What happens if Russia decides not to renew? I'm wondering if he can board an Aeroflot flight to Havana and then off to one of the three countries that offered him permanent asylum? I'm thinking this drama is not over yet.....
Overall that makes sense and I suppose most of us assumed that was the case, but I didn't realize there were16 in the group! I would have come up with 8 or maybe 10. All of a sudden its feeling a little oppressive in here. Thanks for the inside view Spartana. Oppressed...maybe but I think it's a good thing myself. While I don't condone warrantless surveillance, I do see how useful intelligence gathering amongst many agencies - called "Elements" within the US IC (Intelligence Community) - can be in many areas. It was how we we were able to find ships carrying contraband or engaged in illegal operations. And I'm not just talking just trafficing in drugs, illegal immigrants, and weapons (including weapons of mass destruction and the materials to construct them - that stolen weapons grade plutonium probably IS on a slow boat to China....or North Korea...or Iran... or Syria). I'm talking about thing like human trafficking as well. There's a big old ocean out there and hundreds of thousands of vessels - being able to find that one freighter coming out if Asia with a boat load of slaves is info that comes from intelligence gathering by many sources. Pick up a freighter with 150 little girls - some as young as 4 - who are chained in the cargo hold and bound for a life of indentured servitude or sex slavery and you have a whole new view of how valuable the intelligence community is. And how important it is that their ways of operation and info be kept secret.
People like Manning and Snowden don't see that overall big picture. They see one tiny piece of a very complex, multi layered puzzle and make huge leaps based on that alone not realizing they may be creating bigger harm to more people in both the short and long run. What if there was a Manning who spilled Allied troop maneuvers back in WWII? What if by spilling that Intel the Germans were able to mount a more effective counter attack that kept the US et al from gaining a foot hold in Europe? How much longer would the war have gone on? How many millions of people would have continued to be tortured and killed in the concentration camps? By the same token, what if there was a Snowden who leaked info on how Allied forces gathered Intel? The Nazi would then have been able to plug those gaps and we may never have even learned of the existence of the death camps and the millions who were being killed. We may have continued to believed that the endless smoke billowing from the "manufacturing plants" were just the industrious Germans hard at work making widgets...or maybe just a baby milk factory :-) . Millions more in the camps may have died if some Snowden leaked info on how intelligence was gathered.
I think you're right. There are two issues here, and one can hold the opinion that Mr. Snowden is a dishonorable traitor without wanting to toss the fourth amendment out the window. Just as one can hold the opinion that bombing Nazi cities in 1945 was justified without being pleased that gimmethesimplelife's three year old mother was on the ground at the time.
Ditto that! My mom was also bombed out of her German city (Konigsberg - now Kaliningrad Russia) by the Russians when she was 14. Lost her parents, forced into a Russian Labor camp and, after escaping, walked thru war torn Germany from the Baltic Sea to a refugee camp in Munich. And while she had no love for the Russians or the other Allied Forces, as an adult she recognized the need for such secret intelligence in order to free both the Jews and most of the rest of Europe from Nazi oppression - even though both my grandpa and uncle were Nazi soliders. So while She would have felt Snow den was a criminal, that doesn't mean she (or I for that matter) supported the wholesale ease dropping on citizens but she would believe in the need for continued secret intelligence gathering of certain individuals and entities.
gimmethesimplelife
8-9-13, 8:49pm
Spartana - I love it when you post as your posts often make me think. Here you have stopped me in my tracks by shedding an entirely new light on the need for intelligence gathering and by stating this in very human terms. I am going to think over what you have posted for a bit before making any further reply. Rob
This is a very compelling article about the journalists that released Snowden's story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all
ApatheticNoMore
8-14-13, 12:09pm
So while She would have felt Snow den was a criminal, that doesn't mean she (or I for that matter) supported the wholesale ease dropping on citizens but she would believe in the need for continued secret intelligence gathering of certain individuals and entities.
Yea but in that case U.S. intelligence gathering would depend on them being on the right side (yea I know the world isn't so black and white - let's just assume they were in fighting the Nazis ok and bear with me (it's less hard until you start thinking about Hiroshima and the Asian part of that conflict). I think the chances of that are like flipping a coin. And some could would argue pretty well that the chances are lower than that if we consider all U.S. foreign involvement since WWII. But the U.S. has a great Constitution etc. etc. That's all very well and good, but it's DEAD, it's no longer in effect, lawless laws now. Imagine a world not seen through the eyes of any U.S. exceptionalism AT ALL (to the tune of Imagine :)). Anyway the Snowden leaks were not about intelligence gathering on certain individuals and agencies, ie narrow intelligence gathering, they were about wholesale intelligence gathering on everyone.
Lost her parents, forced into a Russian Labor camp and, after escaping, walked thru war torn Germany from the Baltic Sea to a refugee camp in Munich.
For those whose family histories are that of ESCAPE (a value talked about in this thread) - and tons are (and no not just from the Nazis - yes from the Russians also well before Stalin even, escape from many many places and forms of political oppression - economic too - even the runaway slaves). Do you ever stop to wonder how much more difficult surveilence of everything makes escape? I do. All the time. They surveil your electricity use and will know when you are gone (uh smart meters do, that's what they do). They may also know you haven't logged on the internet recently. They surveill all cars and where they are going through cameras (that was recent info released by the ACLU). Heck satellite cameras can monitor much more than that and they are always building more (they want whole elevated platforms of survielelnce cameras). Surveillance drones capture information, they are flying over the U.S., they want more. No escape? Or perhaps a much harder one than people had even from the Nazis and Stalin?
So no I don't find the arguments of pervasive surveillance of everything persuasive.
This is a very compelling article about the journalists that released Snowden's story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all
Thanks for posting this link, it was fascinating to read.
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-13, 12:16am
APN - I hadn't thought of that but I can see where this surveillance (sp?) could make escape much harder, yes. And something I find kind of scary THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW - all caps not to shout but to express how scary I find this - the last time I went to Mexico, there was a Border Patrol person maybe fifty feet away from the turnstile where you enter and emerge in Mexico - asking for ID, passports, that kind of thing. In front of my mother and I - I went down with her as she needed dental work done and did not want to pay US prices - there was a Hispanic man and the Border Patrol guy was grilling him in a way that made me very embarrassed to be a citizen of the US. It was over the top and far to aggressive. Anyway, this man waved my mother and I by, without even looking at our ID - racial profiling? I'm not 100% but having been there in that situation, it sure seemed like it to me. So there is not just technology to contend with - now we have Border Patrol on the US side of the border potentially hassling us.
And I have another story I find scary from the border. May of 2012 I visited Los Algodones for the first time. On the shuttle down to Yuma from Phoenix, border patrol stopped the shuttle on the highway right outside of Yuma - driving TOWARDS Mexico and not AWAY from Mexico. I will state that they were cordial and asked everyone on the shuttle where they were born and then left us in peace BUT it was so creepy that on the way TOWARDS Mexico you can be stopped and potentially hassled. That kind of thing really makes me wonder exactly how free are we? Which kind of ties in to the whole Snowden affair, at least for me.....Snowden's leaked information about the syping makes me wonder, how free exactly are we? I don't like the answer that comes to my mind when I ponder this.....
But yet what Spartana posted a few posts back also make sense to me too. I fear this is an issue much like abortion or politics that will bring on a very emotional and heated response from many people. It also seems to be an issue where middle ground is hard to find and negotiate. Rob
Read this article to get a larger view of the issues involved here. I had no idea that it was the Russian mafia that would benefit from Snowden's efforts.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/14/f-vp-stewart-snowden-russia-spying.html
Spartana - I love it when you post as your posts often make me think. Here you have stopped me in my tracks by shedding an entirely new light on the need for intelligence gathering and by stating this in very human terms. I am going to think over what you have posted for a bit before making any further reply. Rob
Thanks Rob. I do think what the NSA is doing is wrong and it should be stopped, but I believe that the way Snowden leaked it was equally wrong and potentially harmful to many people on a larger scale.
Yea but in that case U.S. intelligence gathering would depend on them being on the right side (yea I know the world isn't so black and white - let's just assume they were in fighting the Nazis ok and bear with me (it's less hard until you start thinking about Hiroshima and the Asian part of that conflict). I think the chances of that are like flipping a coin. And some could would argue pretty well that the chances are lower than that if we consider all U.S. foreign involvement since WWII. But the U.S. has a great Constitution etc. etc. That's all very well and good, but it's DEAD, it's no longer in effect, lawless laws now. Imagine a world not seen through the eyes of any U.S. exceptionalism AT ALL (to the tune of Imagine :)). Anyway the Snowden leaks were not about intelligence gathering on certain individuals and agencies, ie narrow intelligence gathering, they were about wholesale intelligence gathering on everyone.
For those whose family histories are that of ESCAPE (a value talked about in this thread) - and tons are (and no not just from the Nazis - yes from the Russians also well before Stalin even, escape from many many places and forms of political oppression - economic too - even the runaway slaves). Do you ever stop to wonder how much more difficult surveilence of everything makes escape? I do. All the time. They surveil your electricity use and will know when you are gone (uh smart meters do, that's what they do). They may also know you haven't logged on the internet recently. They surveill all cars and where they are going through cameras (that was recent info released by the ACLU). Heck satellite cameras can monitor much more than that and they are always building more (they want whole elevated platforms of survielelnce cameras). Surveillance drones capture information, they are flying over the U.S., they want more. No escape? Or perhaps a much harder one than people had even from the Nazis and Stalin?
So no I don't find the arguments of pervasive surveillance of everything persuasive.
You are making me want to don my tin foil hat and go hide in my bunker :-) :-) But I agree, the potential ramifications of all sorts of surveillance is scary. And running and hiding is probably impossible now a days unlike any Mom's era. While that's a good thing when it comes to finding the bad guys, it's not for those who live in repressive dictatorships who want to escape.
Read this article to get a larger view of the issues involved here. I had no idea that it was the Russian mafia that would benefit from Snowden's efforts.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/14/f-vp-stewart-snowden-russia-spying.html Interesting article. Sad but true that the spy agencies of other counties(as well as the countries themselves) are often embedded with organized crime - and visa versa. Even here in the USA we have to deal with that. Guns, or worse, headed out of the USA intended for military coups or terrorist activities in exchange for drugs, or worse, often run by orangized crime working with a country. Finding weapons smugglers were one of our biggest duties and it was often on a very large scale (hard to transport a large cache of stolen assault rifles to another country any other way then by ship). Of course getting the intelligence from people like the NSA et all was crucial to stopping those kinds of things.
Read this article to get a larger view of the issues involved here. I had no idea that it was the Russian mafia that would benefit from Snowden's efforts.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/14/f-vp-stewart-snowden-russia-spying.html Interesting article. Sad but true that the spy agencies of other counties (and often the whole government of other countries) are often embedded with organized crime - and visa versa. Even here in the USA we have to deal with that. Guns, or worse, headed out intended for military coups or terrorist activities in exchange for drugs, or worse, often run by orangized crime working with a country. Finding weapons smugglers was one of our biggest duties and it was often on a very large scale (hard to transport a large cache of stolen assault rifles to another country any other way then by ship). Classified info being gathered by crminals and sold to the highest bidder, etc... Of course getting the intelligence from people like the NSA et all was crucial to stopping those kinds of things.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
NSA apparently has cracked SSL and the other common methods for engaging in "secure" transactions on the Internet. Your online banking, your online medical records, pretty much the whole shooting match.
I feel safer now!
gimmethesimplelife
9-6-13, 4:02am
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
NSA apparently has cracked SSL and the other common methods for engaging in "secure" transactions on the Internet. Your online banking, your online medical records, pretty much the whole shooting match.
I feel safer now!Creepy, I don't know what else to say but creepy. I am not doing anything I shouldn't be doing, so perhaps I don't have much reason to personally worry (?) but it's creepy anyhow. Rob
Creepy, I don't know what else to say but creepy. I am not doing anything I shouldn't be doing, so perhaps I don't have much reason to personally worry (?) but it's creepy anyhow. Rob
You realize that with that ability, they could post to social media sites as you, break into the computers of foreign powers as you, transfer funds from your bank accounts to Al Qaeda operatives as you....
gimmethesimplelife
9-6-13, 5:16am
You realize that with that ability, they could post to social media sites as you, break into the computers of foreign powers as you, transfer funds from your bank accounts to Al Qaeda operatives as you....No, Bae, I did not know this.....the general idea of it struck me as very creepy and if what you are saying is true, oh vey.....the potential drama seems limitless. What can we do, though? Rob
I am not doing anything I shouldn't be doing, so perhaps I don't have much reason to personally worry... Rob
Keep in mind Rob that is effectively the very same statement made by the good citizens in dozens, if not hundreds, of cases where a central government or leader made a land grab of individual rights. The only way to keep them is to worry about everyone's rights, not just our own.
What can we do, though? Rob
Do you have political representatives?
Political representatives cannot un-crack an encryption scheme. They cannot create an un-crackable scheme. They cannot prevent anyone else from cracking an encryption scheme.
What they can do is fund enough oversight to ensure that the government's ability to crack encryption is used responsibly, in the public interest rather than for anyone's personal gain. They can marshal resources to detect and combat others with such ability from using it irresponsibly.
The key is that they can assert the public interest over private interests. So ensuring that political representatives are most motivated to do so is what can be done.
What they can do is fund enough oversight to ensure that the government's ability to crack encryption is used responsibly, in the public interest rather than for anyone's personal gain.
I fear the old adage still rings true. Once the power of a few became absolute (and in practical terms it has) the corruption of such responsibility quickly followed.
The old adage doesn't actually ring true in this case, since if the government can do it so can other governments and so can commercial interests. Concentration of power actually works against this risk.
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-13, 12:10pm
Basically the backdoors built in by the government could very well be used by common criminals. So they probably also get your credit card and medical information etc..
They didn't build a backdoor. This report is about them cracking the encryption.
ApatheticNoMore
9-7-13, 2:40pm
I find the report incredibly ambiguous and the take of technical people on the report (who I rely on to interpret that badly written report) inconclusive. Oh what I wouldn't give for a clearly written article with some leaks that actually tell us something! Are they cracking encryption (the math itself) or merely building backdoors to sabotage it (ie putting backdoors in encryption software). I don't know. We have Snowden himself saying encryption itself is solid FWIW.
“Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.” – Edward Snowden
Security expert Bruce Schneier (he's worked on encryption algorithms) says cryptography is solid (yea I have weird conspiracy theories that Bruce himself may have been co-opted by the NSA,CIA etc. but that's pure speculation, pure conspiracy theory).
So .... this may be splitting hairs if most encryption goes through encryption programs with backdoors but I don't think we know if encryption itself is cracked.
From what I've read encryption does work, but only to a degree and only in some instances. The NSA, et al, do have budgets so tend to go for the biggest bang for the buck. If they break the encryption code for Microsoft they automatically gain at least some kind of access to every Windows PC on the planet. If I were skilled enough to write my own encryption algorithm they would have to devote a tremendous amount of resources to cracking my single user code. In the end, and as Snowden said in ANM's quote above, there are probably plenty of ways around even that since my information will eventually filter into less secure areas.
They didn't build a backdoor. This report is about them cracking the encryption.
Actually, they did put in back doors...
The agency, at a cost of more than $250 million in the current year's budget, employs custom-built, superfast computers to break codes with "brute force," uses covert measures to ensure NSA control over setting international encryption standards and, in the most closely guarded secret, collaborates with technology companies and Internet service providers in the process, said the documents published by The New York Times, the non-profit news organization ProPublica and a British newspaper, The Guardian.
In some cases, tech firms and ISPs said they were coerced into handing over their master encryption keys or building in hidden methods, known as "back doors," to bypass normal computer, cryptosystem and algorithm authentication systems, the Times and ProPublica said.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/09/06/Documents-show-NSA-can-crack-most-Web-privacy-encryption/UPI-60871378450800/#ixzz2eKRKw4gh
I used to work in this field. There was constant pressure from Our Friends In Washington to alter products. I'm not surprised to see people caved over time.
My thesis in Statistics at Princeton left out a treatment of how to use the technology described to send undetectable data streams atop other data. After we had some discussions with Our Friends at a conference we hosted. You could pull it from the Princeton library, and make a few deductions though, and be on your way...
One of my first companies built a line of secure communications routers/bridges/terminal servers. We used some custom hardware encryption, in tamperproof packaging. Our Friends requested, at the expense of our contracts, that we change a couple of the circuits for our non-government version of the products. We complied.
I did a startup in the 1980s that was going to provide anonymous, untraceable funds exchange, vaguely like bitcoin, based on some information-proof protocols we had come up with (at that very conference I mentioned above). My partners and I were convinced not to pursue this enterprise by Friends, who pointed out who our early adopters would likely be, and the trouble that would cause us...
My last company refused to add some technology to allow 3rd-party tracing/snooping on networks of caching web proxy servers, with the consequence of losing huge government contracts. My group pretty much decided they'd all quit rather than put this stuff in. The marketing folks were a bit miffed.
http://www.expoweekly.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Morpheus-Red-or-Blue-Pill-the-matrix-1957140-500-568.jpg
If you want to talk about this in more detail, just speak into your coffeemaker. :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/documents-reveal-nsa-campaign-against-encryption.html?_r=0
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.