Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[....lybob]

When judging what our agencies are actually doing I suggest forgetting what they are saying and look at capabilities - 5 zettabytes of storage = 8000 hrs of audio for every human being on the planet.

 

weasel word of the week is " listening " as we are not listening to your phone calls - which doesn't mean we are not recording your phone calls - from everything I've read, it is likely that everyone's communication is going through screening software, communications that raise flags will be gone over by more software (think of it as a software triage ) until some rise to the level of needing human attention- for human agents to go through flagged communications it is necessary that they are recorded so the real question isn't are our communications being recorded, it's how long are these recordings retained and who under what circumstances have access to them. Personally it concerns me that not only have they outsourced about 70% of this work but these private companies are also empowered to grant security clearances- and while we heard a little bit of what agencies do or don't do with your information (believe or don't believe) I've have yet to hear about safe guards from bad actors.

[GG]

I'm not seeing any laws.

 

Because they haven't taught you how to use Google in genius school. Here's a hint.

 

The only reason that the 2008 LAW was passed was that Congress didn't want to get into a squabble with the Bush Admin who were exercising their power they believed was given to the Executive Branch under the CONSTITUTION. So Congress & Bush crafted a compromise to expand FISA, which on its own could be unconstitutional, but has never been challenged, so it remains the LAW of the land until someone other than you or Snowden say otherwise.

Edited June 18, 2013 by GG

[DC Tom]

Not quite, there was a broad agency directive which was approved by a secret court, or so we've heard.

 

Regardless, there is no law.

 

No, there was a court order. The FBI requested an order from FISC, who ordered Verizon to provide the data to NSA. Since it's been leaked, it's publicly available. You can read it.

 

I'm not seeing any laws.

 

 

Courts don't make laws. I think you've got your branches of government mixed up.

 

The law requires due process. The due process was that the FBI requested the order, the court granted it. Presumably (though I personally don't count on it) the FBI presented compelling evidence to warrant the court order. And stipulating that due process was followed, the court order carries the force of law. Period.

 

You can argue that the order was invalid...although you have no grounds to judge (none of us has any insight in to the evidence provided for the order). But you can't argue the order's illegal simply because it came from a court, or that the court's making up law as it goes along.

 

At least, you can't argue that without looking like a complete, ignorant fool. So go right ahead.

 

When judging what our agencies are actually doing I suggest forgetting what they are saying and look at capabilities - 5 zettabytes of storage = 8000 hrs of audio for every human being on the planet.

 

weasel word of the week is " listening " as we are not listening to your phone calls - which doesn't mean we are not recording your phone calls - from everything I've read, it is likely that everyone's communication is going through screening software, communications that raise flags will be gone over by more software (think of it as a software triage ) until some rise to the level of needing human attention- for human agents to go through flagged communications it is necessary that they are recorded so the real question isn't are our communications being recorded, it's how long are these recordings retained and who under what circumstances have access to them. Personally it concerns me that not only have they outsourced about 70% of this work but these private companies are also empowered to grant security clearances- and while we heard a little bit of what agencies do or don't do with your information (believe or don't believe) I've have yet to hear about safe guards from bad actors.

 

First, private companies don't grant security clearances.

 

Second...safe guards from bad actors? You mean like Snowden?

[....lybob]

 

 

 

 

First, private companies don't grant security clearances.

 

Second...safe guards from bad actors? You mean like Snowden?

As evidence of the company’s close relationship with government, the Obama administration’s chief intelligence official, James R. Clapper Jr., is a former Booz Allen executive. The official who held that post in the Bush administration, John M. McConnell, now works for Booz Allen.

“The national security apparatus has been more and more privatized and turned over to contractors,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that studies federal government contracting. “This is something the public is largely unaware of, how more than a million private contractors are cleared to handle highly sensitive matters.”

It has gone so far, Ms. Brian said, that even the process of granting security clearances is often handled by contractors, allowing companies to grant government security clearances to private sector employees.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/booz-allen-grew-rich-on-government-contracts.html?_r=0

 

Link provided so some parties don't get panties in a bunch

[DC Tom]

http://www.nytimes.c...racts.html?_r=0

 

Link provided so some parties don't get panties in a bunch

 

Story's wrong.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.nytimes.c...racts.html?_r=0

 

Link provided so some parties don't get panties in a bunch

 

I thought your pansy ass had me on ignore? Besides, it's not quite right to post schit, created by others, and make the opening paragraph which is usually a summation, or at least a teaser, appear as if it was your creation and then put the rest of the article in quotation marks. Linking stuff here is not only a TOS but a way to prevent you from emulating Joe Biden's integrity.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Because they haven't taught you how to use Google in genius school. Here's a hint.

 

The only reason that the 2008 LAW was passed was that Congress didn't want to get into a squabble with the Bush Admin who were exercising their power they believed was given to the Executive Branch under the CONSTITUTION. So Congress & Bush crafted a compromise to expand FISA, which on its own could be unconstitutional, but has never been challenged, so it remains the LAW of the land until someone other than you or Snowden say otherwise.

 

 

No, there was a court order. The FBI requested an order from FISC, who ordered Verizon to provide the data to NSA. Since it's been leaked, it's publicly available. You can read it.

 

The law requires due process. The due process was that the FBI requested the order, the court granted it. Presumably (though I personally don't count on it) the FBI presented compelling evidence to warrant the court order. And stipulating that due process was followed, the court order carries the force of law. Period.

 

You can argue that the order was invalid...although you have no grounds to judge (none of us has any insight in to the evidence provided for the order). But you can't argue the order's illegal simply because it came from a court, or that the court's making up law as it goes along.

 

At least, you can't argue that without looking like a complete, ignorant fool. So go right ahead.

 

I suppose that's true if you're a supporter of judicial activism. For those of us who believe in a seperation of powers, not so much.

[DC Tom]

I suppose that's true if you're a supporter of judicial activism. For those of us who believe in a seperation of powers, not so much.

 

That's not "judicial activism." It's due process.

 

And while it may be an abuse of due process (personally, I think it does), that doesn't make it "judicial activism".

[TakeYouToTasker]

All fiat declarations of court as relates to the proper function of government, absent legislation, are activist.

[GG]

All fiat declarations of court as relates to the proper function of government, absent legislation, are activist.

 

This is equivalent to a 3-yr old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't like his parents' answer.

[IDBillzFan]

Just a note: if anyone is watching the discussions to congress from our intel leaders, you see an amazing presentation difference between people like this who know/believe they are doing the right thing, and the Holders/Lerners/Mueller/IRS weasels who were choking on their own vomit in front of an oversight commttee because they knew they were busted using the government to silence critics.

[TakeYouToTasker]

This is equivalent to a 3-yr old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't like his parents' answer.

You just can't handle being wrong, can you? It's both funny, and predictable. Every time you can't control the conversation, you simply expose your ass, and **** all over the thread. There is absolutely nothing impressive about your tactics, and even less that's impressive about your quality.

Edited June 18, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

It depends who (or when) you ask........................

 

 

[DC Tom]

All fiat declarations of court as relates to the proper function of government, absent legislation, are activist.

 

It wasn't a fiat declaration, it was a court order after due process was presumably followed.

[GG]

You just can't handle being wrong, can you? It's both funny, and predictable. Every time you can't control the conversation, you simply expose your ass, and **** all over the thread. There is absolutely nothing impressive about your tactics, and even less that's impressive about your quality.

 

Is this the part where you toss yourself on the floor and start spinning around?

 

Let's recap.

 

TYTT - I didn't allow AT&T to share my personal information.

 

Parents - Read the AT&T ToS

 

TYTT - I don't see what I don't want to hear in the ToS

 

Parents - So, the provision is there, but you ignore it.

 

TYTT - Doesn't matter. There's no law.

 

Parents - Actually there's FISA, and updated FISAA, which has been upheld by two court challenges. Plus, there are the enumerated powers to the Executive under the Constitution.

 

TYTT - I don't care. It's judicial activism.

 

Parents - You're an idiot and stop rolling around on the floor, you're embarrasing yourself.

[dayman]

fairly accurate summary

[TakeYouToTasker]

Is this the part where you toss yourself on the floor and start spinning around?

No, it's still the part where you assert your preferred neo-conservitive bull **** and revisionist constitutionalism as gospel, and deny standing to the public; all the quile continuing to **** all over the thread.

 

I'll quote the pertinent part of AT&T's TOS again "AT&T does not disclose CPNI outside of the AT&T companies or their agents without customer consent except as required or allowed by law."

 

Now, again, I'll reiterate that there is no law. FISA, and the updated FISAA are laws, laws that I disagree with, but still laws that speak to Foriegn intelligence between Foriegn powers and agents of Foriegn powers which may include Americans suspected of espionage or terrorism.

 

So, while it's a law, it doesn't speak to the collection of domestic communications of ordinary citizens not under prior suspicion of espionage or terrorism. Any broader sweeping surveillance, without a warrant backed by probable cause, is unConstitutional per the 4th Amendment; and given that the Constitution is the High Law, all other laws must report to it. Thus any law seeking to violate those 4th Amendment protections without going through the formal Amendment process are invalid. Furthermore, the enumerated powers of the Executive are limited to implementing acts of Congress which fall under the enumerated powers of the Legislature.

 

Ultimately you're melding Nixon's "...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." with the Bush doctrine which dictates an aggressive executive interpretation of the Constitution; which makes all things Constitutional and permissible; until such time as they aren't; and this is neither moral nor condusive to freedom and prosperity.

 

In summary, you have no idea what your talking about, and are nothing more than a big government ideolouge doing what big government ideolouges do: making fiat declarations, and shitting all over an otherwise quality conversation.

 

Grow the !@#$ up.

[DC Tom]

I'll quote the pertinent part of AT&T's TOS again "AT&T does not disclose CPNI outside of the AT&T companies or their agents without customer consent except as required or allowed by law."

 

FISAA legally requires AT&T to comply with the court order issued under the proper due process of law.

 

Let me repeat: AT&T is REQUIRED BY LAW (FISAA) to follow the court order. (Or appeal it - but given you're inability to comprehend that "required by law" covers "a court order backed by law", why confuse the issue with the concept of "appeal"?)

[GG]

No, it's still the part where you assert your preferred neo-conservitive bull **** and revisionist constitutionalism as gospel, and deny standing to the public; all the quile continuing to **** all over the thread.

 

I'll quote the pertinent part of AT&T's TOS again "AT&T does not disclose CPNI outside of the AT&T companies or their agents without customer consent except as required or allowed by law."

 

Now, again, I'll reiterate that there is no law. FISA, and the updated FISAA are laws, laws that I disagree with, but still laws that speak to Foriegn intelligence between Foriegn powers and agents of Foriegn powers which may include Americans suspected of espionage or terrorism.

 

So, while it's a law, it doesn't speak to the collection of domestic communications of ordinary citizens not under prior suspicion of espionage or terrorism. Any broader sweeping surveillance, without a warrant backed by probable cause, is unConstitutional per the 4th Amendment; and given that the Constitution is the High Law, all other laws must report to it. Thus any law seeking to violate those 4th Amendment protections without going through the formal Amendment process are invalid. Furthermore, the enumerated powers of the Executive are limited to implementing acts of Congress which fall under the enumerated powers of the Legislature.

 

Ultimately you're melding Nixon's "...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." with the Bush doctrine which dictates an aggressive executive interpretation of the Constitution; which makes all things Constitutional and permissible; until such time as they aren't; and this is neither moral nor condusive to freedom and prosperity.

 

In summary, you have no idea what your talking about, and are nothing more than a big government ideolouge doing what big government ideolouges do: making fiat declarations, and shitting all over an otherwise quality conversation.

 

Grow the !@#$ up.

 

So if you don't like a law, that means it's an invalid law? Mighty imperial of you. No wonder you like a democracy where you get to decide what's best.

 

Now, as for that reading comprehension thingie you also have a problem with:

 

In Other Circumstances: We may provide Personal Information to non-AT&T companies or other third parties for purposes such as:

• Responding to 911 calls and other emergencies;
  
• Complying with court orders and other legal process;
  

 

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

 

Now that the floor is spotless, you may get up.

[TakeYouToTasker]

FISAA legally requires AT&T to comply with the court order issued under the proper due process of law.

 

Let me repeat: AT&T is REQUIRED BY LAW (FISAA) to follow the court order. (Or appeal it - but given you're inability to comprehend that "required by law" covers "a court order backed by law", why confuse the issue with the concept of "appeal"?)

I covered that in one of my following paragraphs, though I didn't realize your were another neo-Nixonite.

 

"Ultimately you're melding Nixon's "...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." with the Bush doctrine which dictates an aggressive executive interpretation of the Constitution; which makes all things Constitutional and permissible; until such time as they aren't; and this is neither moral nor condusive to freedom and prosperity."

 

So if you don't like a law, that means it's an invalid law? Mighty imperial of you. No wonder you like a democracy where you get to decide what's best.

 

Now, as for that reading comprehension thingie you also have a problem with:

 

 

 

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

If that was your takeaway, then I think you should reevaluate who has flaws with their reading comprehension; but if it makes you happy, feel free to keep flinging your runny **** all over the place like a poorly trained monkey.

 

Statist ideolouges like you crack me up.