NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Identified, and Interviewed

146

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Upyourbucket

This is good for file sharing and the internet. It brings light on peoples privacy online. Kerndaddy, you are correct. I think we should seal our borders. I wouldn't say America has a true or definitive "culture". We just let everyone come to this country. That's our culture. That's also one of our biggest flaws.

avatar

joeyjr

You have too look out for our counties safty some way too prevent another 911. If that intales a little snooping then so be it. Just because one person thinks there is an unjustist being commited its not ok to compromise our security by blabing to to world. if I was making 200,000 dollars a year I would fine better way to go about changing how things like this are done without in dangering the people of the United States. Edward Snowden is a dumb ass and a trator and I hope they set an example of him. Last I heird he was asking hong kong to let him stay to avoid proqusion make him a coward also. If he realy thought he was right then he should have stayed in the US instead of running away. One last thing I heard on the radio this morning he has now disapered from he hotel room.

avatar

kerndaddy

as Benjamin franklin said, "those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

a "little snooping" is acceptable to keep America safe you say? I say it is absolutely unacceptable.

here is a crazy solution which could be accomplished without driving the final nail into the coffin that was our republic. DEPORT the tens of millions of foreigners that have flooded our nation in the last several decades. then and only then, SEAL THE FREAKING BORDER. after this, we bring the "empire" home. we stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. stop bombing and murdering and orchestrating coups all over the world. stop invading nations. become friends to ALL nations, but have allegiances to none. problem solved.

avatar

joeyjr

As far as I am concerned it is not a big deal if our government is keeping records, because, I am not doing anything that I need to worry about them finding out.

I am sure this is true for most Americans, but question weather you might have something your afaid of.

What's realy unacceptable is another 911 or worse. piece out dude.

avatar

Renegade Knight

That's the normal response. "If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind me invading your life in some way."

It's also logicly broken.

1) You are breaking the law. There are enough of them on the books to where anyone who wanted to cause you trouble could.
2) Even if you weren't breaking the law (which you are) having your information in the hands of other people should give you concerns. Identify theft. Stalking. Harrasment etc. There is a reason we now use the term "Going Postal". People can and do abuse information.
3) Wasting your time. Sure the NSA doesn't need your cooperation, but every other agency does. "Can I Inspect your car, if you have nothing to hide you won't mine. CAn we come in. If you have nothing to hide you won't mind. Even once is too often without a reason.

That's what it comes down too. Reason. If there is no reason there should be no investigation. That's why they should get a warrant for invasive searches. That and the first two.

avatar

maverick knight

"If there is no reason there should be no investigation."

Keyword, reason. the government and its contracted agencies will not investigate anyone or anything without a reason. Obtaining that reason is extremely hard.

The article said that there is no reason to doubt Snowden's previous affiliation with NSA but doesn't provide evidence to back that up, just here say from Snowden himself?.

Its ironic that when the government is suspected of hacking everyone points fingers but when a group like Anonymous does it everyone supports them.

NSA FTW

avatar

joeyjr

One more thing. The price of freedom has never been free and easy to come by. Just ask yourself what are you willing to sacrfice to keep the freedoms we have. If you don't understand then go ask one of our guys that had too pay for our freedoms with their life. As spoke would say, "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few".

avatar

MaximumMike

But in this case it's really about giving up freedom in the name of security, now isn't it? My question to you would be, are you brave enough to live free?

And if the many truly outweighed the few, then it would be illegal to spy on the many innocent in order to catch the few guilty.

avatar

joeyjr

If the world was not the way it is their would not be a need for these steps our government has taken. And to answer your question, yes I am brave enough for freedom. Been deployed twice to prove it and I am not hiding my face either (thats me in Iraq a few tears ago). What have you done except for wine like a baby.

avatar

The Mac

Thank You for your Service....

avatar

MaximumMike

I agree. No one appreciates our soldiers more than I do. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to our country, though I disagree with what you're saying here. I am a Constitutionalist, and I cannot reconcile PRISM with the Constitution in any form. And no, I do not have to wear a military uniform for my opinion to count. If I did, military service would be a mandatory requirement for US citizenship. I truly honor you for what you've done. But if I'm suddenly a whiner or crier, or my opinion carries less weight, simply because I'm a civilian then your service has been meaningless - because it did not preserve my rights as an American. So, I hope you'll understand that though I have the most profound respect for your service, I avidly disagree with you.

avatar

joeyjr

Well, the cats out of the bag now. Thank you for your opinion and support they are very important and respected. Hopefully, the program is not blowwn out of proportion. I did not mean too offend or take my frustration out on you. My source of concern is the way Snowden went about releasing classified information.

avatar

MaximumMike

Browse over to the thread on the Wikileaks guy and you'll find my resolute condemnation of that guy. I don't take it very lightly when people reveal state secrets. Heck, I was even upset with the New York Times for reporting on troop movements during the Bush administration. But the jury's still out on this Snowden guy in my opinion. It may turn out that he just ousted all this stuff to cover his tracks for other illegal activities, and that he is really a problem. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that PRISM is wrong. I'm glad he revealed this program, though I don't know anything of his other activities. But I'm curious, are you simply bothered that he released it at all, or was there something specific about the way he released it that bothered you?

avatar

joeyjr

If you support our troops then you should trust in our government in the same way. Lose lips sink ships!! Their is a reason for classified information, leaking it can cause damage to our security, so he was dead wrong as far as I am concerned and also its the law to keep them secret. Snowden was trusted not to reveal the information, but he did not do that because he thought the public should know about these programs after our elected leaders made the decision too created them. In the military your are told to use your chain of command to resolve differences. If the program is supported by the present of the United States of America and the rest of our government it should tell you something. He should have kept he mouth shut to the world and use his chain of command. The next time there is a terrist attack in the US ask yourself if there was anything you could have done to prevent it, within our laws, like our leaders had to after 911.

avatar

lordfirefox

You swore an oath to protect the constitution. The Patriot act violates the constitution and the bill of rights. As a former military person I CAN NOT and WILL NOT abide by the Patriot Act because it violates the rights of the people I swore to protect.

avatar

joeyjr

If one looks back in history at what Americans had to sacrafice during the WWII it was tough going for most. The whole country was united for the war effort and we did what had to be done because it was the right thing to do. If we all lived in a perfect world and not in a state of war then some things might be different. Believe what you want thats your right but stop for a moment and look at the big picture.

avatar

The Mac

If one looks back closely, you will see the enemy always uses our freedom against us.

its always a balancing act of freedom vs observation.

avatar

MaximumMike

So, if we give up all our freedom... then we'll be able to defeat our enemies? And then what?

avatar

kerndaddy

look man it's not that complicated. our rights aren't granted by the patriot act. they are given to us by God. our bill of rights and constitution only protect those rights.

it doesn't matter if they pass some stupid garbage like the patriot act or not. if it violates the bill of rights it is not law...EVER.

if it violates my second amendment right, I ignore it, as should every other American.

if they try and violate my fourth amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, then the answer is NO. if they do it any way because fools tell them it's ok, like the mac, and I have evidence of it, I will inform the American people as should ALL americans.

if you think somebody is a criminal for shining the light on the those who are orchestrating the destruction of our republic, then what can I say? you are an idiot. let them wear their chains fellow americans, we don't need them.

avatar

The Mac

Anyone can violate whatever rights they wish whenever they wish, if you think otherwise, you are living in fantasy land.

Its up to the courts to decide if its legal.

Just like this asshat releasing top secret information; it will be up to a jury of his peers to decide if he should be punished.

avatar

kerndaddy

the...courts? I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind. you may want our constitution to die just because some yahoo in a black robe decides it going to, but that's not good enough for me.

avatar

The Mac

I would agree, but that doesnt change the reality of the world we live in.

Its not something i "want". its something that is.

If you can find a way to universally enforce those rights BEFORE the violations occur, you have a career in politics ahead of you, and you'd have my vote.

avatar

kerndaddy

no, you are right it doesn't change the reality of the world we live in. that is why it is so important to support those who give up EVERYTHING in order to expose the criminal behavior of our government. when the government hides its unconstitutional abuses of power behind the convenient "classified" label, who else can tell us the truth but whistleblowers?

avatar

The Mac

thats fine, as long as it isnt illegal to do so.

This guy is not a whistleblower, hes a traitor.

The NSA isnt doing anything illegal, as upheld by the supreme court.

They arent being transparent, certainly, but nothing illegal.

If you have to illegally circumvent the system and perjure yourself, you aren't any better than the original perpetrators.

avatar

kerndaddy

my God that's a stupid comment the mac. when the minute men opened up on the red coats at Lexington, wasn't that doing something illegal to circumvent the system? by your twisted logic, they weren't any better than the original perpetrators.

avatar

The Mac

again with crap from 200 years ago.

its a different time, a different world.

Adapt, or perish.

There is no rebellion in this country, your analogies are irreverent.

avatar

kerndaddy

I never thought i'd live to see the day when americans would call the genius of our founding fathers, the constitution, and the declaration of independence, crap from 200 years ago.

what kind of a moron would actually say adapt or perish? adapt or perish? really? is that something you read in a comic book or something? is that newspeak?

I won't waste any more time on you. because quite frankly, you disgust me. I would rather perish a thousand times then live on my knees like YOU.

how's this for crap from 200 years ago? give me liberty or give me death.

enjoy your stay on your knees, and remember, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

avatar

The Mac

Hyperbole much?

[rolls eyes]

i have made no comments about out founding fathers. They were geniuses, in their time.

That time has passed

They weren't psychic, and could not predict the effect of technology on society.

That is left to us to interpret.

avatar

John Pombrio

Mr. Snowden insisted on all 41 slides be published, not just the 5 that were released. He also gave a hel'a'lot more information than these slides, thousands of pages of classified documents. Go Guardian! Welcome Wikileaks!
Of course, his goose will really be cooked then.

avatar

mdude

Also remember everything the founding fathers of the US did was illegal.

avatar

Mungo

Consider the note George Washington sent to war hero and subsequently convicted traitor General Benedict Arnold.

The Commander-in-Chief would have been much happier in an occasion of bestowing commendations on an officer who had rendered such distinguished services to his country as Major General Arnold; but in the present case, a sense of duty and a regard to candor oblige him to declare that he considers his conduct [in the convicted actions] as imprudent and improper.

— Notice published by George Washington, April 6, 1780[70]

avatar

vrmlbasic

Everything? I didn't know that eating, sleeping & breathing (among many others) were crimes in the 18th century...

avatar

Carlidan

Just writing something to get attention? This doesn't even make any sense.

avatar

John Pombrio

The man is clearly guilty of releasing classified documents and will be in prison for it. His choice. But I too would have had grave reservations in keeping this information from the public.
I do not care at all about the government getting information on ME, I care for the government getting information on highly placed politicians, businessmen, and leaders of other countries. J. Edgar Hoover, the long time head of the FBI, was able to influence elections and control political figures by keeping secret files on them. Martin Luther King Jr. said that the FBI constantly harassed him with information leaked to the press and letters sent to his family.
When the NSA can vacuum these large data sets, its not too hard to imagine a corrupt politician or the CIA using it to their advantage.

avatar

mdude

To those who harp about this being classified info, and government being able to legally do this...

... remember everything Hitler did was legal.

avatar

Carlidan

because it is.......

avatar

Carlidan

Just FYI what the NSA is not unconstitutional or unlawful. This is what the patriot act was meant to do. Now if you said it was unethical. That's a different story. Maybe next time, we shouldn't panic and pass stupid laws.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Show me where wholesale spying on Americans without a reason is in the Patriot Act

It is Unlawful as well as Unconstitutional if you cannot show me that section of the Patriot Act

JFYI

avatar

Carlidan

Tell me how it is unconstitutional? Our government is based on laws. We passed a law that Congress, President, and the Supreme court has upheld as lawful. This is all based on the patriot act.

Now it will take me sometime to find the section within the patriot act that gave them the authority to do so.

avatar

compro01

"the Supreme court has upheld as lawful"

Wrong. The Supreme Court upheld nothing. They ruled they didn't have standing to sue, as they couldn't prove they were being spied on.

avatar

Carlidan

Actually the did Compro. What you're talking about is the EFF and other organization lawsuit. Which they still lost as you noted couldn't sue because they couldn't prove they were being spied on. But there were other lawsuits filed that did upheld most of the Patriot Act. You are just citing one of those lawsuit.

avatar

jgottberg

I'm sure you probably already know but even if you find it; highlight it; and make it appear in 72 point bold faced font, Bullwinkle will dispute it.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

That may or may not be true but you will at least gain some respect if YOU can find the section of the Patriot Act that Authorizes wholesale spying on All Americans without any probable cause and without notifying the Companies named in the powerpoint slides when Life and Limb are NOT at stake and when all parties to a conversation are American Citizens residing on American soil

Can Anyone find that section?

ANYBODY?

avatar

Carlidan

The ACLU's recent report, Reclaiming Patriotism, provides more information on parts of the Patriot Act that need to be amended. The three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States, and in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.

avatar

The Mac

Section 2.

avatar

The Mac

uh huh...

show me where it is specifically unklawful for the NSA to do so...

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Section 2

avatar

The Mac

sectio 2 is where they have the legal authority to do so. John doe and roving wiretaps.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

I found the answer to the Legality question

Yes and No (depending on who you ask)

The FACT that the Government "secretly" claims what the public is never told means that you and I cannot possibly know what the Law really is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) wrote Attorney General Eric Holder:

“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-dragnet-legalities/

avatar

Carlidan

Your question was who gave the government the power to do surveillance on U.S. citizens. And was it legal. That was your question. You never asked how they would interpret it. The patriot act did give them the power to do it.