NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Leaves Hong Kong for Moscow with the Help of WikiLeaks

81

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

John Pombrio

Snowden should be in either Cuba or Ecuador by now according to his travel plans.

avatar

The Mac

The Russians have officially refused to turn him over, so hes in no big hurry.

avatar

praack

to be informed is to be forewarned

in this case our country has gone off the rails and is still moving forward expecting us to accept that we are sheep and cattle. and also to accept that we are Guilty and must have our correspondence and contacts reviewed each quarter to ensure that we have not transgressed.

that is what is happening now in the states.

Once the data center is built then the next stage is set to begin- longer term housing of data to track the trends of each of us to ensure we have not transgressed.

the trouble is not knowing what a transgression is , and not having the right to change the law, get the evidence to refute the case, or even know that the you are being monitored.

in the case of Mr. Snowden he became a traitor by just stating the US Government was monitoring us- think- why would our country put a system in place and make it a crime to tell us....

shame

avatar

ApathyCurve

Bye. Don't come back.

avatar

Baer

One of the things I like about this site is it "has been" a teckie site. It has been an escape from politics and partisanship. Why is this covered in here? It is off topic to the nth degree.
Time to head to a different teck discussion site perhaps.

avatar

big_montana

And name a tech site that has not reported in more detail than MaxPC on this? The Verge? Arstechnica? Engadget? Nope all have provided almost daily ongoing coverage of Snowden. Good luck finding a tech site that does not delve into the political realm, especially when politics infringes on technology. You are living in a plastic bubble if you think that there is not one single tech site that will not report on this.

avatar

The Mac

I hardly think an occasional tech relate political piece detracts from the overall quality of the site.

If you dont like them, dont read them.

avatar

Baer

OK, so if I want to talk here about my Fav football team or any other off topic issue you just don't have to read it.
Look, for 30 years off topic threads have been discouraged. Your opinion is noted but I do not agree. There is lots of stuff going on politically that is very annoying and upsetting. Some of us want to avoid it unless we are searching for it or going to a news site. This is not the place.

avatar

The Mac

You are entitled to your opinon

avatar

The Mac

Yeah, because communist regimes are known for their human rights work, never spy on anyone, and are open and transparent, and are generally a friend to liberty and equality.

lol

Have fun with your "freedom" you coward. You lost your freedom here, perhaps the commies will treat you better you fucking traitor.

avatar

Blackheart-1220

Death to Spies... anybody remember that game? XD

avatar

SCSA420

Hey nightkiller you're F'N crazy as I will NEVER trade liberty for security ever!!! IF you will you're a government ass kissing TOOL and that's a fact SAD BUT TRUE................... Oh and Chuck Schumer is an idiot.

avatar

mh15216

Your statement could not be more farcical. You're like a naive child that assumes to actually possess freedom, or liberty to be able to sacrifice. You are handled, herded, tagged, and commanded. You are akin to a sheep in a pen stating how "you aren't a sheep, and you can go wherever you please." If you've ever spent or saved a US dollar or more you have taken security over liberty or freedom. You work for a given numerical stipend the valuation of which is decided to be worth a purchase of "X" goods and services where "X" is decided by a corporation from a system that they have designed for you. You are more concerned of using your stipend in store A, B, or C, for the presumed "freedom" of spending where you please. You get to decide the size, flavor, and store you purchase your latte in and that is about the extent of your "liberties and freedoms."

avatar

SCSA420

You're a F'N joke man. IF you really believe the line of bullsh-t coming out of your mouth then you're like nightkiller a complete and utter MORON and Government TOOL. Personally I don't give a rat's ass what you think. NOBODY tells me what to do and that includes the F'N Feds I don't fear death or dying!!! I'd love to exercise my 2nd amendment rights on F'N idiots who think they can control the people like this F'N Police State country is becoming. Sooner or later the people will get tired of the BS and rise up against the government when that happens don't side with the police and government or you will be making a BIG mistake.........

avatar

The Mac

Another one of these jokers that think they can hold off the world's aggression by acting like a tough guy.

Good luck with that.

These people are so naive, is this really what america is breeding now? a bunch of self righteous delusional flag wavers?

avatar

MaximumMike

No, apparently America is breeding spineless, brainless pansies - willing pigs to the slaughter of America at the hands of Uncle Sam, fully lacking in intellectual integrity and wholly unwilling to embrace freedom. Don't worry, the revolution or rebellion you spoke of previously will never happen. The American people are entirely sold over to the slavery of consumerism and they don't want their bonds broken.

avatar

The Mac

Absoluley, i like having a high standard of living, being the most powerful nation on the earth, and enjoy my toys

you want to grovel in the mud with rocks and sticks with your utopian freedom?, knock yourself out.

ill be stepping on you next time i see you....

after all, it was your choice....

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Absoluley, i like having a high standard of living, being the most powerful nation on the earth, and enjoy my toys

Your ideology will keep you none of them.

>>you want to grovel in the mud with rocks and sticks with your utopian freedom?, knock yourself out

No, I'd much prefer my Constitutional freedoms, though I must admit they get us as close to utopia as possible. Your statist attitude is the one that will have us grovelling in the mud.

avatar

The Mac

I admit freely i am a statist.

Only in the area of defense however.

Minarchist if you will.

avatar

Carlidan

No, you're the joke. If you believe that none of your "freedoms" are taken away for the common good. You're naive. Or that they are taking you're liberty of... away. Anyways, what liberties and freedoms do you think they are taking away? Just curious.

avatar

nightkiller

Anyone who believes that you can have freedom AND privacy is purely delusional. Even if you use Linux. You will be exploited by those who agree not to abide by your definition of freedom or privacy. All the discussions on this page amount to white noise; when push comes to shove, you WILL trade your freedom away so that your can keep your life(style). Every last one of you. And don't go quoting the Constitution. These guys wrote it anticipating that it would be an isolated paradise to create the perfect country. Now we are all connected globally. You expect that everyone will play by the constitution's rules? Naïve in the extreme....

avatar

John Pombrio

John Dvorak in PC mag said that he was surprised that this was a revelation to people. He and other reporters always assumed that the phone calls and the internet was being closely monitored. And he was right.

avatar

big_montana

That has been going on since the NSA has been in existence. Project Echelon was first revealed back in 2000 which tracked every phone call, email and web site you made, sent or visited. And the response from the American people? A collective yawn. Maybe because ti was 60 Minutes that reported it at the time, which had over 20 million viewers at the time, but maybe the wrong viewers. There were programs in place back in the early to mid 70's that tracked phone calls as well. This is nothing new, what is new is how it is being reported and the backlash or lack thereof, as most people think Snowden is a criminal. Even the US government equates whistle-blowing with spying, which could be one reason Snowden did what he did, knowing he would be charged with treason no matter what. - http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/23/4456856/insider-threat-program-reportedly-equates-whistleblowing-with-spying

avatar

The Mac

The difference between Whistle-blowing and spying is that Wistles blowers havent signed a binding contract with an oath not to reveal state secrets.

He knew he would be breaking the law, and the consequences but chose to do it anyway.

I have no sympathy.

avatar

MaximumMike

You're absolutely wrong. Many corporate whistle blowers have violated signed non-disclosure agreements and yet have enjoyed the protection of the courts. Care to elaborate on how this is different? Or is this another statement you feel like running away from?

avatar

The Mac

NDAs are civil, not criminal.

When you sign SBI clearances, you are subject to criminal prosecution.

avatar

MaximumMike

If you want to nitpick, fine. In the 1970's Stanley Adams was a corporate whistleblower who spent 6 months in jail in Switzerland for corporate espionage. He then had to spend 10 years fighting to clear his name. Do you agree that Stanley Adams should have spent time in jail for espionage (whistleblowing), simply because it was Swiss law? Or do you think that Stanley Adams was justified in committing corporate espionage in order to expose the wrong doings of his company?

avatar

The Mac

Nipicking?

Im sorry, but there is a large difference between a lawsuit suit and incarceration.

I havent the faintest clue how the law works in switzerland, nor do i give a damn.

I live in the US.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Im sorry, but there is a large difference between a lawsuit suit and incarceration

Yes, and the example I gave you was one that actually resulted in incarceration. As usual, you dodge questions. At task was your challenge to my argument that sometimes a crime must be committed in order to report a much more egregious crime. The one important difference between espionage and a NDA, as stated by yourself, is that espionage gets you jail time. It's irrelevant if the man served time in jail in Switzerland or here, he still did something that according to the law of the land that he lived in would land him jail time - because it did. But you seriously cannot offer an opinion as to whether this is right or wrong? You can't be bothered to take a few minutes to research the issue for yourself so you can evaluate your opinion that whistleblowing is wrong if it involves committing a crime that has jail time as a penalty? It's astounding that you can claim utter ignorance to the degree that you are unable to formulate even a single opinion on an actual case that has direct bearing on our conversation, and then you can turn around and declare your position on PRISM with utter certainty, even though Snowden has not been to trial yet and not a single case on PRISM has been to the Supreme Court.

avatar

The Mac

i am not dogding, i just dont give a damn about Switzerland, therefore have no comment.

If you wish to provide a domestic example, perhaps i will do so.

avatar

MaximumMike

Nice try. Then why quote Aristotle? He wasn't American. You'll try anything to keep from answering a question.

avatar

The Mac

I have quoted no Aristotle in this thread.

you are mixing up threads...

People are incarcerated all over the world for crap they didnt do.

is that the American governments fault as well?

again, domestic example or i have nothing to comment on.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I have quoted no Aristotle in this thread. you are mixing up threads...

But I'm not mixing up topics. Your Aristotle quote, though on another thread, was on the same topic. If you really believed that only domestic examples were relevant to this topic, you would have quoted an American. Your Aristotle quote is proof that you believe that ideas can come from anywhere and be relevant to this conversation, so long as they clearly demonstrate the point being made. So, it's absurd that you now refuse to comment on a very good illustration of what we are talking about, simply because it didn't happen here. And to put your Aristotle quote into context, "The law is reason, free of passion," isn't that true of law anywhere? Or what if the law changed here? What if we had a law that explicitly targeted whistleblowing by name and made any kind of federal whistleblowing a capital crime? What if you could be hung because you exposed the fact that a Senator molested a little girl? Would you support that law and condemn that whistleblower?

>>People are incarcerated all over the world for crap they didnt do.
is that the American governments fault as well?

Now you're mixing up topics. I never blamed the US government for what happened in Switzerland. I just wanted your comment as to whether or not you felt it was ok that it happened? Why do you limit justice only to the United States? A woman was violently raped by a bus driver in India. Are you telling me you seriously have no comment as to whether that was right or wrong, just because it happened in another country?

avatar

The Mac

That quote of Aristotle was correctly applied in the context of the specific reply for which it was intended.

It has no relevancy here.

My point was, i have no knowledge of Swiss law, or any other country's law for that matter. Since i have no knowledge, any comment i make would be purely conjecture. I make it a point to avoid conjecture when possible.

I can only comment on my own country's law.

The fact that someone was incarcerated in Switzerland for something has nothing to do with American law.

Its also illegal to be homosexual is Iran, and many people are incarcerated for it.

This also has nothing to do with american law.

If you cant give me a domestic example of your argument, there isnt much i can discuss.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>It has no relevancy here.

It is relevant to pointing out your hypocrisy, which I have already done.

>>My point was, i have no knowledge of Swiss law, or any other country's law for that matter.

Including American law as is becoming increasingly more clear.

>>I can only comment on my own country's law.

But you won't even do that.

>>The fact that someone was incarcerated in Switzerland for something has nothing to do with American law.

You're right, it has nothing to do with American law. But it has everything to do with your opinion that Snowden was wrong simply because there was a law that said he would go to jail if he blew the whistle on this program. You can see this clearly from the following:

You said:
""The difference between Whistle-blowing and spying is that Wistles blowers havent signed a binding contract with an oath not to reveal state secrets. He knew he would be breaking the law, and the consequences but chose to do it anyway.""

So, it seemed at this point that part of what made him wrong in your mind was that he signed a binding contract and then violated the oath that went with that contract. But was that in and of itself enough? You clarified this for us all when you said:
"NDAs are civil, not criminal.
When you sign SBI clearances, you are subject to criminal prosecution."

So the key here is being subject to criminal punishement. And you reiterated that sentiment when you said:
"Im sorry, but there is a large difference between a lawsuit suit and incarceration."

It is clear that in your mind it is more important that the government can incarcerate you for whistleblowing than it is that you signed a contract, or else you would share the same disdain for those who violate NDA's.

It doesn't even matter to you that what Snowden revealed is a gross overreaching of the arm of the government. Simply the fact that he violated an agreement that carried with it the threat of jailtime was enough to earn your disdain. So, based on what you have said, any good that may have come from what Snowden did is outweighed by the fact that he knew there was a risk of incarceration. You made this point clear when you said:
"He knew he would be breaking the law, and the consequences but chose to do it anyway."

So, if it is simply enough that there exists any law that threatens jail time, then what happened to Stanley Adams in Switzerland is entirely applicable to the dialogue, because the existence of the law itself is more than enough for you. If the same laws existed here and the same thing happened here under the same circumstances, you would have supported what happened to Stanley Adams. You would have been incapable of finding him undeserving of his punishment.

At that time in Switzerland corporate espionage was a crime that carried the penalty of incarceration. Corporate espionage was necessary in order to reveal the wrongs of Stanley Adams company. You're no more an American lawyer than you are a Swiss lawyer. You don't know anymore about American law pertaining to Snowden's case than what I've just told you about Adams' case (and even if you claim to, that's a claim to authority I would dispute and which you cannot prove and would be irrelevant to the argument). Yet you stand ready to hand Snowden a sentence but refuse to even comment on Adams' case. Your justification is that you're no expert on Swiss law. Well, you're no expert on American law either. You clearly demonstrated that fact when you deferred to the courts when I asserted that the Constitution was straightforward and understandable by everyone. If you cannot comment on the meaning of the Fourth Ammendment, you are certainly in no legal or credible position to comment on Snowden's case either, based solely on your own logic for not commenting on Adams' case.

>>If you cant give me a domestic example of your argument, there isnt much i can discuss.

Hah! Fat chance! I've already asked you several times to comment on a domestic Supreme Court case. If you won't comment on that one, why should I bother digging another one up for you. The real truth is that in every conversation I have had with you, you have dodged, dismissed, misconstrued, or simply ignored every analogy or real life example I have presented to you. The real truth is that you do not care to argue with any of the real points which discredit your position, but only to find some way to hide from them.

avatar

The Mac

see my repsonse below about your irrelevent supreme court case.

I am not interested in arguing in circles with you.

You clearly dont know what you are talking about, keep citing irelevent facts, and referecing prior threads that have nothing to do with the current discussion.

For the millionth time, im not interested in what happened in another country, it has no bearing on american law.

You seem to want me to give some kind of moral assessment, which i am not interested in giving.

I stand by my initial statements:

1. Snowden is a criminal, and deserves to be punished. He is not a wistle-blower, he is a traitor to his country, and should be hanged like all traitors.

2. FISA, The Patriot Act (section 215 in particular), and PRISM are fully legal.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>see my repsonse below about your irrelevent supreme court case.

Your response is nothing more that the blanket dismissal of a lazy jackass, but then I didn't expect much else from you. See my real response below yours.

>>I am not interested in arguing in circles with you.

Then stop repeating the same stupid shit and try saying something of substance.

>>You clearly dont know what you are talking about,

As usual, you are wrong and delusional. Try disproving anything I've said then someone might take you seriously.

>>keep citing irelevent facts,

Which one would that be? Please, show even one to be irrelevant.

>>and referecing prior threads that have nothing to do with the current discussion.

Actually every reference from my last post (which this was your response to) was from the current thread. Not only can you not read, but you can't even follow your own ridiculous logic. How do you expect anyone else to?

>>For the millionth time, im not interested in what happened in another country, it has no bearing on american law.

It doesn't have to. It has direct bearing on the sentiments you expressed, regardless of country. Heck, I even went so far to ask you if we had the exact same law here if you would have supported it. But once again you dodge the question. What are you hiding?

>>You seem to want me to give some kind of moral assessment, which i am not interested in giving.

Really? Then why do you go on to say this,
"He is not a wistle-blower, he is a traitor to his country, and should be hanged like all traitors."

Snowden hasn't been tried or convicted yet. You don't know all the facts admissible in a court of law. You're not a lawyer, judge, or juror. The only basis for your statement is that it is a moral assessment. In fact, you've been making lots of moral assessments like that. So, what's the problem with me challenging your beliefs on moral grounds? If you would have said, "I believe a court will find him guilty of treason and hang him," I would have no grounds to challenge you morally. But because you have obviously made a moral determination, don't be surprised that I've challenged the consistency of your moral values.

>>1. Snowden is a criminal, and deserves to be punished. He is not a wistle-blower, he is a traitor to his country, and should be hanged like all traitors.

That's your moral assessment of him. For the time being, my assessment is that he is a patriot, until perhaps some morally damning evidence is produced.

>>2. FISA, The Patriot Act (section 215 in particular), and PRISM are fully legal.

In the case of FISA and the Patriot ACT, of course they're legal (of the law) to some degree, being by nature laws themselves. But in the United States of America to speak of a Federal law as legal or illegal is to speak of its adherence to the Constitution or lack thereof. You're the one making this claim. Please either provide some proof or STFU.

In the case of PRISM, you cannot possibly assert it is constitutional because no case related to PRISM has ever been before the court. Furthermore, you claim it is authorized by the Patriot Act and FISA. I've read them and don't see how. Please elaborate.

And for God's sake Maximum PC includes a spell check for you. Please try using the thing. Your mangling of the English language is far beyond the normal typo. I'm usually not the spelling police but yours is a constant eye sore.

avatar

big_montana

And you totally missed the point of my post, as the Obama administration does not see the difference between whistle-blowing and spying, as to them they are one in the same now. Read the article I linked to.

avatar

The Mac

And you have missed mine.

Blowing the whisle on a organizations culture of sexual harassment, waste, or fraud is very different than releasing legally protected state secrets.

One is reporting a crime, the other is committing one.

avatar

MaximumMike

But it's also a crime to break corporate contracts you have agreed to and signed. You seem to have enough sense to realize that the committing of the one quasi-crime is essential and acceptable when it comes to exposing corporate wrong doing. Yet you want to give the federal government a pass in the same situation. What you are doing IS the liberal position- big corporations are evil, but big government is good. I can only wonder how you align yourself so completely with the liberal position and then lambast dissenting conservatives as though they were liberal. Why not just condemn them for their conservatism and patriotism? It would be less confusing for you and everyone else.

avatar

The Mac

no, it is not illegal.

It is perfectly legal.

It leaves you open to civil suits (contractual) but is not illegal.

You clearly dont understand tort law.

and btw, im a conservative for the umpteenth time...

I am not giving the government a pass, i just don't think this situation is particularly egregious. This nonsense has been going on for decades, nothing new to see here.

But i do believe Snowden is a traitor and should be hung by hung balls...

avatar

MaximumMike

How is it not egregious that the government is cataloging every email? Many sensitive documents that they would normally need a warrant to seize are now commonly transmitted via email. How do you think it's ok for them to completely ignore the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? How can you look at a blazen violation of any Amendment in the Bill of Rights, say it's not egregious, and claim to have a brain in your head? What the F would constitute as "egrigious" on the part of the federal government if the violation of your most basic Constitutional rights doesn't? Perhaps they have been spying for decades, but they have not been collecting emails for that long. And even if they have, that doesn't make it ok. I fail to see how anyone who isn't in on it can think this is ok.

avatar

The Mac

You can be as morally outraged as you wish but the bottom line is they are doing nothing illegal.

Its held up to many challenges including the supreme court.

Honestly, i could care less.

There are bigger fish to try.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>You can be as morally outraged as you wish but the bottom line is they are doing nothing illegal.

The Constitution isn't a legal document? Violating it isn't illegal? Does your brain work at all?

>>Its held up to many challenges including the supreme court.

That's an outright lie. You are making PRISM and the Patriot Act synonymous, which they are not. You believe that the Patriot Act authorizes PRISM. But there has been no Supreme Court Case in which the entire Patriot Act was tried, only some pieces. And nothing in relation to PRISM has been to court as the public only just now knew of it's existence. So, if the entire document you are espousing as the legal basis for PRISM hasn't been tried as a whole, and if the portions that authorize PRISM haven't been tried in regard to the actual practices of the PRISM program, how can you make these preposterous claims? If there is a Supreme Court Case you can reference that clearly shows that PRISM has passed the muster of that court, then please cite it and I'll retract my statement that you are lying. But while you search for that which does not exist, I submit to you the case, United States v. Antoine Jones for the second time (you ignored it the first time). If "your" interpretation of the Patriot Act has passed the Supreme Court, then please elaborate on the outcome of that case?

>>Honestly, i could care less.

That's how I know you're only pretending to be conservative.

>>There are bigger fish to try.

Like what? The Second Amendment?

avatar

The Mac

PRISM is based mostly on title two of the patriot act: specifically roving wire taps, and John Doe warrants.

Both of which have stood up to the supreme court.

You may make whatever inferences you wish, but it wont change the fact that PRISM is perfectly legal.

I have no need to cite specific cases related to PRISM, as it was a TOP SECRET program. Duh.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>PRISM is based mostly on title two of the patriot act: specifically roving wire taps, and John Doe warrants.

Please elaborate on how that covers mass-collection of the American public's emails.

>>Both of which have stood up to the supreme court.

I don't believe you and you have yet to prove it. Please elaborate on United States v. Antoine Jones (for the third time). You can't dodge this one, it's as "domestic" as it gets.

>>I have no need to cite specific cases related to PRISM,

Ummmm, actually you do. You told the lie that PRISM had "held up to many challenges including the supreme court." The onus is on you to provide the actual Supreme Court cases. Until then you will remain a pernicious liar.

avatar

The Mac

You have completely misinterpreted/misquoted/taken out of context my post.

Please re-read.

avatar

MaximumMike

No, I haven't. I have challenged you based solely on exactly what you have said. And I have explicitly cited a Supreme Court case, United States v. Antoine Jones (now for the fourth time), which disagrees with what you are erroneously claiming. But you have repeatedly ignored direct requests to reconcile this Supreme Court case with your claim that PRISM has the blessing of the highest court of our land. That much is very clear. If you feel you are somehow being taken out of context, then by all means elaborate. I have represented your ideas as I have understood them. The onus is on you to be more clear.

avatar

The Mac

Please google and read FISA, and section 215 of the patriot act.

I refuse to respond to arguments taken out of context.

I have not responded to your your court citing, as it isn't relevant here. It deals with a domestic narcostics suspect who was monitored with a GPS without a warrent. It was not subject to either FISA, or the patriot act. Not to mention the fact that the supreme court ruled it was clearly a 4th amendment search, but they never ruled wether it was a fourth amendment violation (as being unreasonable)which would require a warrant.

If you wish to re-quote my previous post in the correct context, and not cut sentences off to alter their meaning, ill be more than happy to respond.

avatar

MaximumMike

You know, I wasn't going to respond to this because logical arguments are entirely lost on you, and your responses contain very little of substance. Also, I have been very busy lately. But after some thought, I just couldn't let this one go.

>>Please google and read FISA, and section 215 of the patriot act.

Ok, I read that. How do you think that justifies the Federal government collecting my emails, Facebook activity, etc? If the program was just limited to spying on foreign entities, as FISA is intended, most people wouldn't care. It's the domestic spying that's at issue. How do you read FISA to justify that?

>>I have not responded to your your court citing, as it isn't relevant here. It deals with a domestic narcostics suspect who was monitored with a GPS without a warrent. It was not subject to either FISA, or the patriot act. Not to mention the fact that the supreme court ruled it was clearly a 4th amendment search, but they never ruled wether it was a fourth amendment violation (as being unreasonable)which would require a warrant.

I am honestly shocked that you actually responded to this at all. But what doesn't shock me is that you regurgitated the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on the case, but couldn't be bothered to read further. I actually find it funny how you so emphatically state that this program is legal and authorized by the Supreme Court, yet you understand so little about what is involved legally.

Although, I've already quoted you on this above, I'm reiterating this here.
>>I have not responded to your your court citing, as it isn't relevant here.

It's not surprising that YOU cannot see its relevance when you can't even see how your own statements are related to one another, but that doesn't mean this case is not relative to what we are talking about. It just means that you are ignorant and unable to reason through the facts as usual. But don't worry, I'll explain them for you, not that I have any confidence you'll comprehend them.

>>It deals with a domestic narcostics suspect who was monitored with a GPS without a warrent. It was not subject to either FISA, or the patriot act.

That much is correct. This case is not relative to our argument based on the information you just referred to. But sadly you didn't have the cognitive ability to reason what was relative about the case.

>>Not to mention the fact that the supreme court ruled it was clearly a 4th amendment search

It's actually amazing that you managed to state the most significant part of this case but entirely miss its importance. Well, on second thought, it's not that amazing. I'll elaborate on the importance of this part of the ruling later.

>> but they never ruled wether it was a fourth amendment violation (as being unreasonable)which would require a warrant.

But they didn't need to. As you have already informed us, GPS monitoring isn't what we're talking about here. So, a ruling of whether or not this constituted a Constitutional violation would not have any bearing on whether activities under the PRISM program constituted the same, regardless of said ruling.

But what does have a bearing on PRISM is what the Supreme Court had to say about what constitutes a Constitutional search under the 4th Amendment. Justice Scalia delievered the Opinion of the Court and said this,
"Our later cases, of course, have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach. In Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967) , we said that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” and found a violation in attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth. Our later cases have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in that case, which said that a violation occurs when government officers violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” ... For unlike the concurrence, which would make Katz the exclusive test, we do not make trespass the exclusive test. Situations involving merely the transmission of electronic signals without trespass would remain subject to Katz analysis."

Furthermore, Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan concurred saying,
"Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) , finally did away with the old approach, holding that a trespass was not required for a Fourth Amendment violation. Katz in-volved the use of a listening device that was attached to the outside of a public telephone booth and that allowed police officers to eavesdrop on one end of the target’s phone conversation. This procedure did not physically intrude on the area occupied by the target, but the Katz Court, “repudiate[ed]” the old doctrine, Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 143 (1978) , and held that “[t]he fact that the electronic device employed . . . did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance,” 389 U. S., at 353 (“[T]he reach of th[e] [Fourth] Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure”); see Rakas, supra, at 143 (describing Katz as holding that the “ca-pacity to claim the protection for the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place”)..."

Finally, Justice Sotomayor offered her own concurrence saying,
"Of course, the Fourth Amendment is not concerned only with trespassory intrusions on property. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27–33 (2001). Rather, even in the absence of a trespass, “a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Id., at 33; see also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735–741 (1979); Katz v. United States..."

It is perfectly clear that each and every Supreme Court Justice concurs that a 4th Amendment search occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy is violated. In fact, Justice Sotomayor went on to say,
"I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection."

So, you can proffer your statist propaganda all you like, but the right to online privacy is very real and supported by all sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. This doesn't bode very well for your claim that PRISM would stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, many of the activities reported to be conducted under PRISM and related programs fall well outside the domain of FISA, and wouldn't even be offered the protection of that egregious legislation. You really don't have a leg to stand on, other than the fact that you appeal to yourself as an authority, which is not only unsubstantiated but one of the worst logical fallacies.

But you would have known that if you had bothered to actually read and understand the case. But that's not your way. You simply want to win an argument by refusing to acknowledge any of the important points, because you're too lazy and arrogant to do the required research to know what you're talking about.

>>If you wish to re-quote my previous post in the correct context, and not cut sentences off to alter their meaning, ill be more than happy to respond.

I'll include or cut off whatever part of a sentence I damn well please in order to make it clear exactly what sentiment of yours I am replying to. But go ahead and show where I've taken anything you've said out of context and I'll gladly fix the context.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.