And I don't wish to live anywhere on this damn planet... I'm not arguing that Snowden shouldn't be punished. You can't tango with the Anglo-American world power and come out unbloodied. But I just think that the government is using him as a scapegoat to avoid scrutiny and that the controversy over him is pointless since whatever happens to him will happen no matter what anyone thinks. But what I get from what you're saying is that you would rather have stayed oblivious? Well, thats fine, but you don't strike me as that type, you strike me as someone who wants to know whats going on, and then discuss it. You should be thanking the dude for giving you something to talk about...
What he did in taking the laptops to China was wrong, no question. Would we have heard about the wrong that the NSA was doing if he hadn't done this?
There was no wrongdoing, that's the point. You feel slighted by the use of the law, which is perfectly acceptable. It's the same as the people who blame GE for using complicated tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Your issue should be with your elected representatives that passed these laws almost six years ago. I knew this was going on, it's not my fault if you don't pay enough attention. You do realize that you could have read these two pieces of legislation six years ago, but you didn't. Besides, a majority of Americans find the NSA surveillance programs acceptable. So in a democracy, the people are getting what they want. So why the outrage?
I thought your original post was about how the world couldn't give a crap for American govts anymore Is this a worry for US citizens? What do US administrations need to do to be taken seriously by the rest of the world? The secret is out, a bunch of paranoid war mongers no matter which puppet is in charge.
Snowden, who told about PRISM, is a betrayer, Assange, who told about Wikileaks, is not. You just want to kill Snowden, who told too much. Is that a real democracy? Snowden did nothing in Russia to arrest him, he's also not in international wanted list. He's also not on the Russian territory, he's in the airport, waiting for his flight to Havana.
I think that the U.S. will capture or kill him. If he makes it to Ecuador, he'll likely die. If he makes it to the U.S., he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. Regardless, I salute the man. He acted on a principle I strongly believe in. The idea of vast data mining is unsettling, to say the least.
It's more like, "Your honor, it was in self-defense. He was threatening me swinging his gun around." You're one to talk, talking absolute about your supposed justice system. I have no respect for your laws. My respect rests in justice not without its mercy. You're right that it is the same with those that blame GE, but you're on the wrong fence as you rather blame GE in this case. It is democracy itself that is the ultimate form of mob rule, and this is as a rule as to the biggest problem with democracies: so long as the majority likes it, all is supposed to be well. It is in the truest sense a 'democracy'. The majority are always the worst of tyrants. "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist." - Lord John Acton
The whole thing is kind of sad. He throws away his life at the same age I am. Even if he "gets away" with this, he'll never be normal again. The NSA has take its mandate to protect and spun it way out of control. In an effort to catch needles in haystacks, they're hoovering up whole barns. Sure, it'll stop a few acts here and there, but the trade-off between security and safety is a discussion we should HAVE in a democratic society. There never really was a discussion of this, at all.
Right. The public should always be consulted about how to conduct intelligence investigations, because an uninformed emotional reaction is so immensely valuable. And secrecy is never a real requirement.
I'm with The Economist's view on this one. They roughly say that in a democratic society we should debate the merits of the intelligence we gather, even if we have secrecy involved. The guy isn't a hero, but the NSA's methods shouldn't be beyond the citizen's rights to have a voice in them. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579455-governments-first-job-protect-its-citizens-should-be-based-informed-consent
Then again, where someone is on the power of government to intrude in their lives is a matter of opinion. Some fall heavily towards libertarianism, and some want government to intrude into everything.
Sorry for the sarcastic tone, But much of the outcry against security activity is based on a lot of opinion and a shortage of in-depth knowledge. Security deals with very dirty people, and requires very unpretty measures.
I have no problem with much of the apparatus of security America has built, but I do think there's a role for the public to have some input into the whole thing. I don't mind the government keeping some things closed, but given the level of controversy surrounding this whole issue, it is clear that people do not feel this trade off, at the moment, is worth it. Backlash towards these actions can lead to dismantling, which would put us at a severe disadvantage. No one wants that (well, a few libertarians). This line, from the article, sums it up fully: Spooks do need secrecy, but not on everything, always and everywhere. Officials will complain that disclosure would hinder their efforts in what is already an unfair fight. Yet some operational efficiency is worth sacrificing, because public scrutiny is a condition for popular backing. Even allowing for the need to keep some things clandestine, Americans need a clearer idea of what their spies are doing in their name.
Prism is more than just an intelligence investigation. It's also a fishing expedition. The government keeps records of emails, calls, etc. for as long as they want. Perhaps your emails and calls don't raise any red flags right now, but a year or five years from now, it might be a different story. Also, snooping and private data have been used to target individuals in the past (for example, Eliot Spitzer). If the government decides to target you, there's not much you can do, and that's one reason why so many people are against programs like Prism. On a side note, there is a huge double standard when it comes to government leaks. If the leaks make the government look good, then all is forgiven. For example, Leon Panetta revealed classified info related to the identity of the ground commander of SEAL Team Six, and that information was top secret. Of course, Panetta got away with it, even considering that this info might put someone's life in danger.
patayto patahto. Collecting intelligence is largely like filtering a like filtering a lake to find a handful of gold nuggets. Do you really think anyone has the time or motivation to search the rest of the lake water and sludge to find out who is schtuping whom? Filtering all that raw data to assemble a small amount of useful information is very time consuming and expensive. The reason all the raw data is preserved is to enable investigators to follow each legitimate lead as far as possible. It's easy to get paranoid about personal data if you have no understanding of the difficulties involved in mining useful information from exabytes of raw data. As for double standards, it's unclear what Panetta's consequences will ultimately be. Don't be so sure he won't face serious consequences.
I understand your point, but I still don't think it means that anyone needs to be okay with it. Just like Snowden needs to realize there are consequences, so does the government and everyone else need to realize that everything isn't just gonna be fine when people find out their 'dirty' methods for dealing with dirty people, as you said. Dirt is dirt is dirt. And if the ends of the government justify the means, then why don't the ends of the guy who told on them? Not saying I agree that his ends justify his means or he shouldn't get punished, I am neutral on the subject, I just feel like it's a logical fallacy and a double standard. And even though I know that argument doesn't really hold water, it's something interesting to think about. Why is it okay for a government to break or bend laws, but not an individual? Why is it okay for a government to say that the ends justify the means, but not an individual? Does it just come down to power? I don't know, but it's interesting to question those kinds of things, even just for the mental exercise.
That's the problem. It isn't just a mental exercise. It's a war against a murderous enemy who has no compunction about exploiting any sense of decency or morality. It's an enemy that thinks nothing of hiding military targets among their own civilian populations, and they would gladly have us leave private communications inviolate while they use the same public networks to plan and carry out attacks.
Are you describing terrorists or the government? And I think you're misinterpreting what I meant. I am questioning the roles and rights of government over that of the individual... Don't twist that back to the threat of terrorism, that's not what it was about, and that was clear from my post. Fear and a threat can only serve as justifiable excuses for so long before it turns into something more insidious. When is the line crossed between reason and madness? What happens next, where does this slippery slope lead, if anywhere? See, thats the troubling part, that what happens now might be fine and dandy, but what precedent does it leave for the future? What is the end result of those dirty methods? That is what people are concerned about deep down, I think.
It has been argued that Eliot Spitzer was a victim of the Patriot Act (the fine print allows the government to look at financial transactions). After all, having sex with prostitutes is hardly terrorism. Interestingly enough, Spitzer was the prosecutor in several cases involving Wall Street companies. So yes, this intelligence can be used to target an individual or even a group of people. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD were sued for spying on Muslims. Also, something like 70% of data collection and analysis is done through private contractors. This means that analysts working in those companies have access to your data, too. Another thing to keep in mind is that a FISA 1881a certification only lasts a year, but the emails and phone records collected by the NSA are kept forever.
News release today, guess what, turns out "progressive" and "blue" were on the list of key words the IRS employees used to flag 501C groups that looked suspiciously like political groups seeking tax dodges disguised within faux educational front groups. IRS also targeted progressive groups From Mother Jones, little better detail: I wonder if that IRS IG is this guy? Fascinating stuff.
