Messages
10,131
Reactions
20,602
NSA and the FBI and CIA,

give me citations on attacks on them as a DIRECT result of Snowden's leaks and information. And last I recall, none of these are citizens of US; but rather, organizations.....

one could argue that what NSA did is harm the organization of the People of the United States, specifically their expectation of privacy and reasonable security against unwarranted searches and seizures of personal, privately held data.

EDIT: how would YOU feel if someone came up to you, asked you questions regarding YOUR past, and then TOLD you that you were lying, and persecuted you for perjury on the basis that they've had your personal data and information from YOUR own past that you have EVERY RIGHT to not tell or answer to them?

No matter how embarrassing, no matter how much you want to move on, or forget, the thought that an impersonal, all-seeing, invasive organization is keeping tabs on EVERYTHING you've done, whether it be public or private.....is pretty unsettling in the sense that there's NO real privacy....

which itself is a violation of the Constitution.
One of the Amendments explicitly state that the accused have the RIGHT to face his/her accuser...what the NSA does, and by proxy, the FBI and the CIA, and also by proxy, the State and County level with automated cameras and such, is to remove the right of the accused to face the accuser...AND also remove the right of the people to privacy and personal lives. That is a wonderful example of a totalitarian, statist central government program, in which the federal Government feels it has the right to KNOW everything on its subjects without the subjects having real power to fight back, with the exception of 2A.
 
Messages
9,751
Reactions
18,067
When you are a servant of the government in any capacity and you are witness to gross criminal activity, its your duty to report it. Who or how could Snowden have done anything different than what he did and still be alive? There's no doubt that if he blew the whistle through the regular channels he would have had a late night visit from an off the record wet-worker from one of the CIA mystery departments.

Instead of the headlines Snowden made, you would have seen a small blurb in the paper - " Low level government contractor found floating in harbor, dead from apparent suicide".....

Or go out of control and hit a tree and burned in a car fire.
:s0155:
 
Messages
6,947
Reactions
8,221
Being put on a no-fly list because you stated an opinion/protested against the government isn't 'harm?'. Getting audited? They do a lot of harm, but have NEVER stopped a terrorist incident in the phony war on terror. In their eyes, the terrorist always has been and always will be YOU if you are about individual rights and liberties.
 
Messages
1,197
Reactions
1,110
Your last paragraph may be true, I am almost sure he knew he would have instant notoriety.

I guess my question would be however............if harm had come to a US citizen because of what the NRA was doing would this change your perception. ? Just curious.

Thanks.
SW

It's OK. We knew you meant NSA. :s0114:

Again, with all due respect, another apples and oranges argument. To my knowledge this simply did not happen. If it did then we'd be hearing all about the lawsuits filed from those allegedly harmed. Although I'm no constitutional scholar, it is my understanding two things have to happen for there to be a violation of in this case, the 4th amendment. The evidence is illegally obtained, and one has to be "harmed" by it. Such as presenting the illegally obtained evidence against a person in a trial.

Example: Many cops have knowingly make illegal searches, finding illegal stuff just to get it off the streets. (Especially big cities) No judge will issue a search warrant based on the hunch the cop has. So the cop does the search anyway, finds the illegal stuff and seizes it. The badguy doesn't get charged or even arrested. The badguy hasn't been harmed simply because the cops took away his illegal stuff. Stuff he shouldn't have had in the first place. Nor was it presented as evidence in a trial against him. (There is much case law on this matter.)

Being put on a no-fly list because you stated an opinion/protested against the government isn't 'harm?'. Getting audited?

This program isn't needed for these to occur. It would likely be a waste of this program to use it in this manner. Again, I am not defending, endorsing or condoning this program. I do not like the government collecting data on its citizens as much as any of you. But I'm not surprised by it. Back on topic, to me the NSA's program and Snowden actions are two very separate issues.

On a related but off topic matter, I don't think it's a big secret I was a LEO in my "first life" then in the telecommunications field in my "second". When this program came to light, what surprised me were the reactions by the general public. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. People knew or should have known communications, especially electronic communications are not nor will the ever be "secure". Is this because I have special knowledge for "being in the business?" I like to think not. To me it is common sense.

Then to learn only the metadata was being collected made me think what's the big deal? Metadata is nothing more than a to/from address on the outside of an envelope and how thick the envelope is. By its very nature metadata cannot or should not be thought of as "secure" by neither the sender or receiver. Without metadata, a third party, in this case, the phone company can't deliver the message. In other words the phone company cannot make the connections necessary to complete a call. And it is my understanding the metadata issue also has been heard and addressed by various courts over the years and has a wealth of caselaw behind it. (No I can't give the citations.) Does this also have to do with "special knowledge" from "being in the business"? Again, I like to think not as again, it is common sense.

Back to Snowden. Again, he had legal avenues open to him. I guess what irks me so much about this guy is his running then releasing, after he was on foreign soil. If he had true convictions and really believed in what he was doing, he would have released the stuff here in the US then taken his lumps, or "fallen on his sword". Had Snowden done that I'd probably feel different about him. Instead the actions this weasel took are cowardly and clearly show a continuous of guilt. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and I stand by what I earlier said he simply wanted fame and to embarrass the US government.

//
 
Messages
2,948
Reactions
2,211
It's OK. We knew you meant NSA. :s0114:

Again, with all due respect, another apples and oranges argument. To my knowledge this simply did not happen. If it did then we'd be hearing all about the lawsuits filed from those allegedly harmed. Although I'm no constitutional scholar, it is my understanding two things have to happen for there to be a violation of in this case, the 4th amendment. The evidence is illegally obtained, and one has to be "harmed" by it. Such as presenting the illegally obtained evidence against a person in a trial.

Example: Many cops have knowingly make illegal searches, finding illegal stuff just to get it off the streets. (Especially big cities) No judge will issue a search warrant based on the hunch the cop has. So the cop does the search anyway, finds the illegal stuff and seizes it. The badguy doesn't get charged or even arrested. The badguy hasn't been harmed simply because the cops took away his illegal stuff. Stuff he shouldn't have had in the first place. Nor was it presented as evidence in a trial against him. (There is much case law on this matter.)

I will agree with you to a point about the thus-far lack of criminal prosecutions based on NSA surveillance evidence, however I tend to think of that argument as something of a red-herring. One of the fundamentals of secret programs is that the value in the secret is it's ongoing value, a key example of this was Ultra during WW2, where actions were not taken that would have saved lives (an important action) in order to protect and important program (in this case a surveillance program). Extending this idea, it shows that the operational security of a secret program may override the importance of life saving action. Thus a large terrorist attack may be ignored, in the anticipation of a future pay-off in some other way.

Comparing a secret digital surveillance system to physical searches carried out by the police is something of a non-starter. It would be extremely rare that the heavy hand of urban police would go unnoticed when conducting a search. Warrant or not.

The major problem with your argument is that assumes that bad guys are always bad, and good guys (even if they act like bad guys) always have good intentions. Fact of the matter is, governments have a long history of abusing such power, declaring things illegal and then descending on anyone foolish enough to cross them with a very heavy hand. The whole reason why we have warrants, a system of checks and balances, judicial review, and all those other "constitutional artifacts" is because the founding fathers were wise enough to see the abuses that rise from these things not being present.

Warrantless wire-tapping, meta-data collection, are all things that could not have been envisioned by the founders, but are just as dangerous to liberty as the constraints placed on the state in the fourth and fifth amendments. The fact that a court ruled that transaction records are the property of the telecommunications company and thus not subject to the same protections is a statistical outlier, other laws have been written and enacted that make data collected about you by a third party private, a key example of this is HIPAA, in that medical records, which are usually collected, created and assembled about you by a third party (your doctor) are private privileged information. However information collected by another third party who is also under your employ (you pay for phone service) you are not granted the same privilege.

Government surveillance is a anathema to the institutions and fundamentals to the functioning of a free state. Politicians, dissidents, philosophers and political thinkers are all people who can be caught up in a government surveillance system, politicians can now be bribed or blackmailed by it, dissidents can be jailed, and philosophers and thinkers can be silenced. The outcomes of this will only be a stronger and more obtrusive security state. As anyone who lived in East Germany how great it was to have the stazi protecting them from terrorists, you're likely to get smacked in the mouth.

This program isn't needed for these to occur. It would likely be a waste of this program to use it in this manner. Again, I am not defending, endorsing or condoning this program. I do not like the government collecting data on its citizens as much as any of you. But I'm not surprised by it. Back on topic, to me the NSA's program and Snowden actions are two very separate issues.

On a related but off topic matter, I don't think it's a big secret I was a LEO in my "first life" then in the telecommunications field in my "second". When this program came to light, what surprised me were the reactions by the general public. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. People knew or should have known communications, especially electronic communications are not nor will the ever be "secure". Is this because I have special knowledge for "being in the business?" I like to think not. To me it is common sense.

Then to learn only the metadata was being collected made me think what's the big deal? Metadata is nothing more than a to/from address on the outside of an envelope and how thick the envelope is. By its very nature metadata cannot or should not be thought of as "secure" by neither the sender or receiver. Without metadata, a third party, in this case, the phone company can't deliver the message. In other words the phone company cannot make the connections necessary to complete a call. And it is my understanding the metadata issue also has been heard and addressed by various courts over the years and has a wealth of caselaw behind it. (No I can't give the citations.) Does this also have to do with "special knowledge" from "being in the business"? Again, I like to think not as again, it is common sense.

Back to Snowden. Again, he had legal avenues open to him. I guess what irks me so much about this guy is his running then releasing, after he was on foreign soil. If he had true convictions and really believed in what he was doing, he would have released the stuff here in the US then taken his lumps, or "fallen on his sword". Had Snowden done that I'd probably feel different about him. Instead the actions this weasel took are cowardly and clearly show a continuous of guilt. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and I stand by what I earlier said he simply wanted fame and to embarrass the US government.

//

“I love treason but hate a traitor.”

― Julius Caesar

I think there is much more to this case which has yet to be revealed. I don't think snowden pulled up stakes and left the country because he likes won-tons or peroshkis more than hamburgers and hot-dogs. Yes, there are legal means for whistle-blower protections, however given the significant investment (hundreds of billions) in the surveillance state, and it's capabilities it seems entirely likely that protecting that investment may easily trump the value of one Edward Snowden. Regardless of snowden's intentions I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of leaving the country, I know if I was going to be the one to pull the trigger on something like that I would want some pretty serious guarantees before I even thought about it. Fact of the matter is, he didn't arrange with foreign governments ahead of time, and really only ended up staying in russia because there was no way for him to get out.

Again, I too have been in the IT security field since the 1990s (I left in the late part of the 2000s), and while I don't have specific knowledge of the eavesdropping programs, I know enough that I don't consider most generic transactions carried out online to be free and clear of government attention. However the revelations made by snowden were specific and "actionable", which is why people took so much notice.

The fact of the matter, in this debate is that snowden is largely irrelevant except for his disclosure.
 
Messages
9,751
Reactions
18,067
It's OK. We knew you meant NSA. :s0114:

Again, with all due respect, another apples and oranges argument. To my knowledge this simply did not happen. If it did then we'd be hearing all about the lawsuits filed from those allegedly harmed. Although I'm no constitutional scholar, it is my understanding two things have to happen for there to be a violation of in this case, the 4th amendment. The evidence is illegally obtained, and one has to be "harmed" by it. Such as presenting the illegally obtained evidence against a person in a trial.

Example: Many cops have knowingly make illegal searches, finding illegal stuff just to get it off the streets. (Especially big cities) No judge will issue a search warrant based on the hunch the cop has. So the cop does the search anyway, finds the illegal stuff and seizes it. The badguy doesn't get charged or even arrested. The badguy hasn't been harmed simply because the cops took away his illegal stuff. Stuff he shouldn't have had in the first place. Nor was it presented as evidence in a trial against him. (There is much case law on this matter.)



This program isn't needed for these to occur. It would likely be a waste of this program to use it in this manner. Again, I am not defending, endorsing or condoning this program. I do not like the government collecting data on its citizens as much as any of you. But I'm not surprised by it. Back on topic, to me the NSA's program and Snowden actions are two very separate issues.

On a related but off topic matter, I don't think it's a big secret I was a LEO in my "first life" then in the telecommunications field in my "second". When this program came to light, what surprised me were the reactions by the general public. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. People knew or should have known communications, especially electronic communications are not nor will the ever be "secure". Is this because I have special knowledge for "being in the business?" I like to think not. To me it is common sense.

Then to learn only the metadata was being collected made me think what's the big deal? Metadata is nothing more than a to/from address on the outside of an envelope and how thick the envelope is. By its very nature metadata cannot or should not be thought of as "secure" by neither the sender or receiver. Without metadata, a third party, in this case, the phone company can't deliver the message. In other words the phone company cannot make the connections necessary to complete a call. And it is my understanding the metadata issue also has been heard and addressed by various courts over the years and has a wealth of caselaw behind it. (No I can't give the citations.) Does this also have to do with "special knowledge" from "being in the business"? Again, I like to think not as again, it is common sense.

Back to Snowden. Again, he had legal avenues open to him. I guess what irks me so much about this guy is his running then releasing, after he was on foreign soil. If he had true convictions and really believed in what he was doing, he would have released the stuff here in the US then taken his lumps, or "fallen on his sword". Had Snowden done that I'd probably feel different about him. Instead the actions this weasel took are cowardly and clearly show a continuous of guilt. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and I stand by what I earlier said he simply wanted fame and to embarrass the US government.

//

There was little knowledge as to the depth of this privacy invasion until Snowden revealed it.
Personally I am glad he did. I do not think the enemies like Islamic terrorists learned anything new at all, as they already knew the depth they were being spied on, but the JQ public for the most part did not realize it until this happened.
He did the people a service to let them know the depth our own government was invading their privacy and every day lives. That is a good thing. It lets people know exactly what this administration is.
A government that does not trust its citizens CANNOT be trusted at all.
 
Messages
3,983
Reactions
7,959
My concern is what else did he give the bad guys...what was on all those drives, etc??? Yes, blowing the whistle is good if someone runs with it but it seems he is just getting shouted down. No on e ever imagined we'd have an AG who was such a conniving sleaze bag on top of a bunch of federal judges who like to see the law according to their "modern view." We have a perfect storm of crooks in government right now. I worry about John Walker sort of damage to national security from whatever Snowden leaks to the Russians. So he's a traitor that said "Oh by the way" NSA is up your skirt American people along with being overhead...."

I see it like the murderer who says, Oh yeah, I killed those two people you want me four, but these cops killed three more and here's the photos. Cut me a deal and I'll tell you where 6 other bodies are buried as well. I think he earned getting wrung out aT GITMO. Just because he's a whistle blower doesn't get him a free pass.

Brutus Out
 
Messages
2,948
Reactions
2,211
My concern is what else did he give the bad guys...what was on all those drives, etc??? Yes, blowing the whistle is good if someone runs with it but it seems he is just getting shouted down. No on e ever imagined we'd have an AG who was such a conniving sleaze bag on top of a bunch of federal judges who like to see the law according to their "modern view." We have a perfect storm of crooks in government right now. I worry about John Walker sort of damage to national security from whatever Snowden leaks to the Russians. So he's a traitor that said "Oh by the way" NSA is up your skirt American people along with being overhead...."

I see it like the murderer who says, Oh yeah, I killed those two people you want me four, but these cops killed three more and here's the photos. Cut me a deal and I'll tell you where 6 other bodies are buried as well. I think he earned getting wrung out aT GITMO. Just because he's a whistle blower doesn't get him a free pass.

Brutus Out

You put way too much value on classified documents, and too much value in publicity. Fact of the matter is, when snowden went public if he had any secret war plans, passwords, etc all of those things were immediately changed and the value of the stolen documents was completely lost. When snowden pulled up stakes and showed up in HK, it was right as the whole thing was going public. I don't remember reading any stories about "NSA contractor disappears" days or weeks before the guardian published. It happened within hours, this leads me to conclude the disclosure was plan A. The problem was that his plan A step 2 that involved getting to a friendly nation hit more than a few snags.

Now leaking documents is equivalent to murder? I'm also not sure about sending him down to GITMO, someone with that level of operational experience being tossed in with a bunch of america-hating terrorists? I'm pretty sure being put in a room with bugs, rats and being forced to listen to loud music at all hours plus enduring some threats of violence would be childs play compared to what the other inmates would do to pull info they can use out of him.
 
Messages
4,073
Reactions
5,342
I'm sure to get flamed for this. Go ahead, I have a think skin.

Snowden is nothing more than a criminal. He committed treason. He knows it too. If he was self righteous as he proclaims then he wouldn't be on the run like he is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not debating the merit(s) of his actions, nor am I debating the actions of the US Government in regards to surveillance. I am saying he has/had no authority or right, if you will to do what he did. We have a charismatic high school drop out making foreign (and domestic) policy for the US Government.

How far do you think our allies are going to trust us now?

How far do you think the government would let him go if he did not run?

I guess committing treason for exposing the government spying on it's own people also all the while they say they're not.

I guess lying to our allies is better than letting them know the truth upfront instead of later on down the road. Friends (allies )like that who needs enemies
 
Messages
4,073
Reactions
5,342
Salted, I respect you and your opinions, however, this is an apples to oranges argument.

I'm not defending the NSA or this "program". Surveillance of citizens who are suspected of no wrongdoing is despicable and serves no useful purpose. However, to my knowledge no US CITIZEN has been harmed by what the NSA may have or may not have done. The same however cannot be said regarding England's policies toward the colonists in the 18th century.

This guy just wanted fame and to embarrass the US Government. He had effective and legal means open to address his concerns. Had he used any number of them then yes, I'd be jumping on the bandwagon along with many of you touting him as a hero.

:peace:

So you know they lie to our allies. what makes you think they don't do the same to us? so they keep a better secret and you don't know if any citizen has been harmed.
How can you trust them at all?

By the way I think they used a drone on a citizen.
Which Snowden might want to keep in the back of his mind.
 

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top