Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[GG]

 

Mass warrants to include whatever you might find, are UnConstitutional, thus making FISA itself, unlawful....

 

Except that the two recent court challenges to the law were not upheld. So far you have Executive, Legislative and Judicial in accord about the law.

[DC Tom]

You have to appreciate the irony of the WH trying to get your mind off the NSA stuff by making everyone focus on "Where's Snowden" while consequently showing everyone that not only have the bumbling fools lost him, but Russia and China are convinced the WH is turdbowl of leadership. I heard Carney today say how strained US relations will be because Russia won't play ball...as if Russia gives a flying rip about the US and it's gutless leader.

 

How did that reset button thing not work???

 

I'm going to take this moment to point out again that this administration's high-water mark was beers on the White House lawn.

[3rdnlng]

And again, neither of you read the link, nor understand how a warrant is supposed to work....

 

******HINT*******

 

Mass warrants to include whatever you might find, are UnConstitutional, thus making FISA itself, unlawful....

 

You are not hearing me. I believe that Snowden was really wrong in divulging what he did to who and how he did it. If he had real courage he would have looked for people within the government that he could have gone to who either had high enough security clearances or the integrity to do this right. It seems like he was trying to avoid prison at all cost and now has just put himself in a much larger prison. You know, I've argued in this thread that Snowden was a traitor. I could probably be convinced by a rational person that he's not technically a traitor but still traiterous in the more common usage. I happen to think that at least some of what is going on behind the closed doors of the NSA is likely unconstitutional. I also think that some 29 year old kid may not be the one to determine that all by hisself. Anyway, all this spying should make me filling out "The American Community Survey" moot, eh?

 

And here's some more for ya:

 

http://livewire.talk...h-contractor-to

 

 

National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden said earlier this month that he took a job with government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton for the express purpose of collecting evidence of top secret surveillance programs.

Snowden made the statement in a June 12 interview with South China Morning Post that was published on Monday.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” Snowden said. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Read the latest portion of the Post's interview with Snowden here.

 

 

Sounds like a spy to me.

Edited June 25, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[4merper4mer]

I saw the headline of the Drudge Report this morning and it looks like good news.

 

It is a picture of Putin and the caption NYET! under it.

 

I am in a hurry so I didn't read the story but the headline certainly implies they will turn Snowden over after some period of time. We just don't know when.

[CosmicBills]

As for the cars and license plates in public outrage - when I am in public, specifically on government roads I am okay with them knowing I am there. If I was in my neighbor's yard I would want him to know I was there. There is no expectation of privacy for me while out in public. When I am sitting on my couch, minding my own business, talking to a friend I do expect privacy.

 

...And there's the rub.

 

As we have become more dependent upon telecommunications for our day to day lives, we have been forced to surrender any right to privacy we once had REGARDLESS of our physical location. As you say in your example, you expect privacy when you're on your own couch talking to your friend. But now, people sit on their couch and talk to their friends on their phone, tablet, email, message board -- all of which are now being defined as "public" venues despite their seemingly private appearance. The rules have changed rapidly in the past decade and change. According to some of the posters in this thread (and talking heads bloviating on TV), we no longer have privacy in our own homes -- at least not if that home has a fiber optic cable running into it or a smart phone within 20 feet of our persons -- and we are supposed to accept this as the new state of the world without batting an eye. We need these restrictions and a new definition of privacy in order to keep us safe in a world filled with evil-doers. It's simply the cost of doing business in a digital world, or so they say.

 

But, very few people are thinking about this in the long term. We are redefining our national identity in a dramatic and potentially cataclysmic manner.

 

Imagine what happens 20 years from now if we continue to willingly surrender our constitutional right to privacy. We started the slide 10 years ago by surrendering our right to due process in order to fight the nebulous "War on Terror". In the decade since, a new generation has come of age that accepts limits to our privacy simply because they've never known anything different. And it's only going to get worse. The deck is stacked against us from an economic and social standpoint.

 

Today it's hard to be efficient or even marketable as a potential employee without an email account, cell phone, tablet or other connected machine. The very nature of our economy and society compels us to use these devices and yet we cannot use these devices without willingly surrendering our 4th Amendment rights when we sign the dotted line on the service provider contracts. We have been conditioned as a populace, in less than two decades, to accept this new reality as a fait accompli. Think about that! In less than twenty years we as a nation have willingly surrendered one of the bedrock principles of what it means to be an American. That's STUNNING to this poster.

 

But the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. The question now is what do we do next?

 

And that's the whole thing. The data collected is not telephone conversations, but routing data of call origination and termination. That phone number and traffic isn't yours, but the telephone company's. Once they need to go beyond that, then a different protocol is in place.

 

At least that's what they tell us.

 

With everything you know of history, do you feel 100% confident that that's all the information the federal government is monitoring? Or, is it more likely that we're only being told a snippet of their true capabilities? I don't ask this as a way of being combative but with honest sincerity. Hasn't it been proven time and time again that the military is at least a decade ahead of the public in terms of technological capability? The NSA clearly has the ability to store and compile as much data as they wish, clearly beyond just the routing information and yet you seem to be taking the line that if they tell us they're not spying on us, they're not spying on us.

 

Isn't that a dangerous way to view the situation?

 

Earlier in the thread you pointed out Lincoln and FDR's assault on due-process in times of war as an illustration for how our country has fought its way back from the brink before. These were men facing monumental threats to our country's survival, in those extreme circumstances they took bold action to do what they felt was right. History judges both of these actions as black marks on their records (moreso FDR's than Lincoln's) but excuses them in light of the historical context. But what about today? Our country does not face a threat anywhere near as dangerous as those epochs and yet the current violations of privacy and due process are light years beyond what FDR or Lincoln did, at least in terms of scope.

 

What happens to our privacy when our nation faces a real threat once again? If this is the new normal, what does it look like when things are cranked up in a time of war? The answer to that should at least be alarming.

[4merper4mer]

And that's the whole thing. The data collected is not telephone conversations, but routing data of call origination and termination. That phone number and traffic isn't yours, but the telephone company's. Once they need to go beyond that, then a different protocol is in place.

 

When you think about it though I think it is cool if the government listens in. Hear me out:

 

1. These conversations are being transmitted over public lines/airwaves.

2. The conversations are basically ideas...I have learned from this site that once someone has an idea that idea belongs to everyone....so this just expedites the process right?

[DC Tom]

2. The conversations are basically ideas...I have learned from this site that once someone has an idea that idea belongs to everyone....so this just expedites the process right?

 

[GG]

 

2. The conversations are basically ideas...I have learned from this site that once someone has an idea that idea belongs to everyone....so this just expedites the process right?

 

No, not that idea. Not that one, either.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons will be anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons.

[Joe Miner]

Anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons will be anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons.

 

It's fun to base arguments off of the way you see reality instead of the way that it actually exists.

 

The internet is an amazing haven for chronic narcissists.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's fun to base arguments off of the way you see reality instead of the way that it actually exists.

I'm curious to know exactly what you think you're talking about.

 

The internet is an amazing haven for chronic narcissists.

It's statistaically likely that I'm better than you by virtually every objective metric humanity uses to measure quality and success. I know this because I know what percentiles I fall in across the board. This doesn't make me a chronic narcissist, it just makes me better than you. Learn the difference.

[GG]

Anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons will be anti-freed market, corporatist, neo-cons.

 

Yeay, slogans rule.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yeay, slogans rule.

Stop walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, and I'll stop naming you a duck.

[GG]

Stop walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, and I'll stop naming you a duck.

 

Catch any good conspiracy flicks lately? You've been slacking.

[Joe Miner]

It's statistaically likely that I'm better than you by virtually every objective metric humanity uses to measure quality and success. I know this because I know what percentiles I fall in across the board. This doesn't make me a chronic narcissist, it just makes me better than you. Learn the difference.

 

Did you get a ribbon for that?

 

Oh happy days in the Tasker household. Pa was so happy to learn that his boy won the blue ribbon fer bein better than the other kids.

 

Did your Ma send a write up to the paper about her special boy? I bet she still has the newspaper clippins on her fridge. Prolly mailed one to all your aunts and uncles too.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Catch any good conspiracy flicks lately? You've been slacking.

Did you knot your jack-boots a bit to tight today? You seem even more unreasonably dickish that usual.

 

Did you get a ribbon for that?

 

Oh happy days in the Tasker household. Pa was so happy to learn that his boy won the blue ribbon fer bein better than the other kids.

 

Did your Ma send a write up to the paper about her special boy? I bet she still has the newspaper clippins on her fridge. Prolly mailed one to all your aunts and uncles too.

Hey man, if you don't like the fact that I'm far better than you, you can work to improve your station, continue to whine about it on the internet, or you can kill yourself. I'm completely ambivalent to your choice. Proceed as you will.

[Joe Miner]

Did you knot your jack-boots a bit to tight today? You seem even more unreasonably dickish that usual.

 

 

Hey man, if you don't like the fact that I'm far better than you, you can work to improve your station, continue to whine about it on the internet, or you can kill yourself. I'm completely ambivalent to your choice. Proceed as you will.

 

Wow, it's like I just called you out on making up your own reality. And here we are...

 

You just can't help yourself can you?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Wow, it's like I just called you out on making up your own reality. And here we are...

 

You just can't help yourself can you?

I see you've chosen "whining about it on the internet."

[Joe Miner]

I see you've chosen "whining about it on the internet."

 

In Taskers world that must be true.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Joe Miner

[GG]

...And there's the rub.

 

As we have become more dependent upon telecommunications for our day to day lives, we have been forced to surrender any right to privacy we once had REGARDLESS of our physical location. As you say in your example, you expect privacy when you're on your own couch talking to your friend. But now, people sit on their couch and talk to their friends on their phone, tablet, email, message board -- all of which are now being defined as "public" venues despite their seemingly private appearance. The rules have changed rapidly in the past decade and change. According to some of the posters in this thread (and talking heads bloviating on TV), we no longer have privacy in our own homes -- at least not if that home has a fiber optic cable running into it or a smart phone within 20 feet of our persons -- and we are supposed to accept this as the new state of the world without batting an eye. We need these restrictions and a new definition of privacy in order to keep us safe in a world filled with evil-doers. It's simply the cost of doing business in a digital world, or so they say.

 

But, very few people are thinking about this in the long term. We are redefining our national identity in a dramatic and potentially cataclysmic manner.

 

Imagine what happens 20 years from now if we continue to willingly surrender our constitutional right to privacy. We started the slide 10 years ago by surrendering our right to due process in order to fight the nebulous "War on Terror". In the decade since, a new generation has come of age that accepts limits to our privacy simply because they've never known anything different. And it's only going to get worse. The deck is stacked against us from an economic and social standpoint.

 

Today it's hard to be efficient or even marketable as a potential employee without an email account, cell phone, tablet or other connected machine. The very nature of our economy and society compels us to use these devices and yet we cannot use these devices without willingly surrendering our 4th Amendment rights when we sign the dotted line on the service provider contracts. We have been conditioned as a populace, in less than two decades, to accept this new reality as a fait accompli. Think about that! In less than twenty years we as a nation have willingly surrendered one of the bedrock principles of what it means to be an American. That's STUNNING to this poster.

 

But the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. The question now is what do we do next?

 

 

 

At least that's what they tell us.

 

With everything you know of history, do you feel 100% confident that that's all the information the federal government is monitoring? Or, is it more likely that we're only being told a snippet of their true capabilities? I don't ask this as a way of being combative but with honest sincerity. Hasn't it been proven time and time again that the military is at least a decade ahead of the public in terms of technological capability? The NSA clearly has the ability to store and compile as much data as they wish, clearly beyond just the routing information and yet you seem to be taking the line that if they tell us they're not spying on us, they're not spying on us.

 

Isn't that a dangerous way to view the situation?

 

Earlier in the thread you pointed out Lincoln and FDR's assault on due-process in times of war as an illustration for how our country has fought its way back from the brink before. These were men facing monumental threats to our country's survival, in those extreme circumstances they took bold action to do what they felt was right. History judges both of these actions as black marks on their records (moreso FDR's than Lincoln's) but excuses them in light of the historical context. But what about today? Our country does not face a threat anywhere near as dangerous as those epochs and yet the current violations of privacy and due process are light years beyond what FDR or Lincoln did, at least in terms of scope.

 

What happens to our privacy when our nation faces a real threat once again? If this is the new normal, what does it look like when things are cranked up in a time of war? The answer to that should at least be alarming.

 

You still have the right to privacy inside your property. It gets very murky when you expect your privacy to be protected when you utilize someone else's property. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated - the telephone number isn't yours, the traffic isn't yours. The only thing that is yours is the conversation, which AFAIK nobody listens to without a warrant or court order.

 

Funny part to me is that Snowden suffers from the same narcissistic complex that our friend in this thread. He thinks that laws don't apply to him because he disagrees with them, never mind that all three branches of government have agreed on these laws. So that's the legal justification. Again, people don't care that their license plates come across police screens of cars on the road, or your letters/addresses are scanned during the postal transit. Why the hubbub about telephone traffic, which goes over public airwaves that are leased/licensed from the government?

 

There's also a practical reason why this is far down the list of my worries. Imagine for a second how much traffic moves across the telecoms switches & routers every day. Now imagine the kind of processing power you would need to pick your number and conversation out of that haystack.

 

For the life of me, I don't comprehend how people can write War and Peace worthy tomes about government incompetence, then turn around and believe that the same government turns into a super efficient organization just because the federal department's acronym changed. I believe that incompetence is endemic, and just because the NSA got outed, doesn't mean they're that they're run better than the IRS. Snowden is proof positive that incompetence runs in the veins. Think about it, a guy sets out to get inside a place to collect information so that he can release it - and he does it in less than 4 months. If NSA was this fearful information gathering machine, he wouldn't have lasted a week, and would have been dead by now.

 

So, yeah, this case would make a decent thriller (not that the field hasn't been completely mined over the last 60 years) And this is my opinion why people are getting into a huff. They're watching a script develop in real life, except in reality, Snowden & his ilk are not the compassionate heroes who bring down an evil government set to establish a police state. It is a complex world that is intertwined in political and commercial relationships. A lot of times, the sausage making isn't pretty. I'm ok with that, because I know that over history (four centuries worth) US has always come out on the side that is right.

 

I also don't understand why you feel sanguine about what the US is facing. Tell me, how many times in its history has US been attacked on its continental soil? Do you feel confident that there will be no more attacks? Or will you be willing to sacrifice a few more thousand people so that you can protect your veneer of privacy, while letting us know what time you take a dump on Facebook? (the "you" I'm referring to is a general you)

 

Did you knot your jack-boots a bit to tight today? You seem even more unreasonably dickish that usual.

 

 

That's a novel side step of Godwin's Law.