NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden Identified, and Interviewed

146

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

That's YOUR interpretation

avatar

Carlidan

It's not my interpretation. It's what both administration interpretation of the law.

avatar

jgottberg

@Carlidan - I hate to say I told you so... lol :)

avatar

RGCook

One should approach any activity over a publicly available network as though it is unsafe and insecure. The NSA got caught doing what many other governments are doing. Hold them to task for it but these debates are meaningless to rogue agencies and organized hackers that are accomplishing same with far less nobel (stated) goals.

The internet isn't private folks.

avatar

jgottberg

If the government really did use the intelligence they gathered via wire taps, reading emails, etc. to thwart terrorism attacks, I'm absolutely ok with losing some anonymity if it means that a life could be saved.

In truth, because the government COULDN'T talk about how they were gathering information, we will probably never know how many terror plots were discovered and mitigated BECAUSE of the way they were able to gather the intelligence.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I'm not ok with losing my Constitutional rights for any reason, let alone one that you admit isn't a certainty ("...life COULD be saved").

That thunderous crash you just heard? That was Ben Franklin and millions of other Americans collectively face-palming at your sentiment.

avatar

jgottberg

If you really think that there is such a thing as anonymity from ANY government, then the second thunderous sound was that of reason falling on your ignorance.

It's pretty much a certainty that they were doing this long before the Patriot Act was passed. Passing the Patriot Act just made the public aware that they do have a program in place. And if it were ever found out to which extent they were eavesdropping, they had a piece of paper saying they had the right to.

avatar

armyof1ne

well... if indeed they did their job right, boston might have been prevented, failure so far in my book, i dont think blanketing everyone is wise, i feel like im watching an episode of "american dad", i think its season 1 episode 6, where he locks up his neighbors in his back yard, suddenly something that was supposed to be funny and outlandish isnt so far from the truth.

avatar

jgottberg

"...if indeed they did their job right, boston might have been prevented"

I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to a statement so obtusely idiotic but here it goes...

Nothing is 100 percent accurate except maybe death. Other than that, anti-virus software still allows a virus now and then, phone calls still occasionally drop in 2013, emails get classified as clean when a .zip file is attached with a payload.

My point is that nothing is 100 percent accurate but more times than not, it works. For every tragedy like Boston, there could be 50-100 that were prevented.

avatar

armyof1ne

sadly there are alot of what if's the fact remains, it didnt stop the boston bombings, when by all means it should of, how much they talked back and forth and posted stuff, maybe they arent going as indepth as it seems.
you shouldnt compare antivirus programs to this... they are reactionary, not preventative.
The concept of this was prevention.
all the heuristics in the world couldnt figure out matryoshka based viruses. most still cannot be detected before activation. in fact it used to be nothing could until the software on the system was installed and activated. (that is by definition, reactionary, lol)

stating numbers like that is just vague, that number could also be 0 that it prevented, without a firm basis of the numbers, i cannot say they are doing their job right. All i can see is one failure, thats it.

All joking aside(american dad stuff) This is very disconcerting that someone that is supposed to be "transparent" isnt at all... I do feel that this is something that probably should have happened to go along with the "big brother" garbage that has been around forever. but as long as it doesnt harm agents in the field and is strictly intel gathering domestically thats effected, im ok.

avatar

ftldelay

So, just because he revealed classified information, he's a traitor and a criminal? What if the government was killing Americans and covering it up and someone made the classified cover-up documents public, they'd be a traitor and a criminal as well? If the government is doing things that are unethical or unconstitutional, I don't care if it's classified - it needs to be revealed so they can be held accountable!

avatar

The Mac

Thats perfectly fine, as long as you are willing to face the consequences of doing so.

If you are going to reveal state secrets, you are going to get locked up. period.

It better be worth it.

You want to be a martyr? fine...

I dont want to hear any cry-baby whining when the piper comes to call...

avatar

ROMANOXE

We are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It would be like if local law enforcement was to fingerprint you and take DNA without you been convicted of a crime, or without your consent. Every time we cede our rights to the government, it doesn't matter how insignificant it may seem, the more freedom we loose.

The government can be a blunt tool. It should not be a one size fit all.

He did right for what he did. It is not like what Pvt. Manning did with the classified information he gave to Wikileaks.

avatar

vrmlbasic

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, local law enforcement has the go-ahead to fingerprint you and take your DNA before conviction :(

My state is so blue: it was taking DNA on any arrest before it was cool (and "legal"), and was responsible for the issue working its way up to our pushover Supreme Court.

avatar

The Mac

I think youve missed the premise here.

If the information is never used, there is no due process issue.

Anyone can evesdrop on you at anytime if they wish, You arent a special snowflake.

Its what is done with that information thats at issue.

avatar

MaximumMike

Wrong, the government eavesdropping on me without cause at all is an issue.

avatar

The Mac

They arent evesdropping on YOU.

They are evesdropping on EVERYONE.

you arent special enough for them to care.

lol

avatar

MaximumMike

So, lets go out on a leg of unlikely fiction here and suppose that the federal government orders the US military to round up and enslave every US citizen, and that they actually have the technology to do so. Would that mean that it was ok, because they were enslaving everyone and not just one or two "special" people?

avatar

The Mac

couple problems with that:

1. The us military is not permitted to operate on domestic soil without a presidential order. It would have to be Militia (National Guard) which is very small comparatively.

2. Do you really think the congress would allow that? or the senate?

come on, if you are going ot use an example, at least use a plausible one...

avatar

MaximumMike

You're dodging the question. It's not about whether you feel this is plausible (I already stated the scenario wasn't plausible). It's about whether you're willing to be consistent in your reasoning, because I find it unlikely that you really believe the logic you previously used is good logic- you know, that it makes it ok to do something wrong as long as you do it to everybody.

avatar

The Mac

no im not, your hypothetical situation is not plausiple, therefore not relevent.

Since everyone else seems to be insistent on evoking Goodwin's Law: What if Adolf Hitler rose from the grave and restarted the 3rd Reich? That just as improbable, and just as irreverent.

I never implied what they are doing is wrong. You did.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>no im not, your hypothetical situation is not plausiple, therefore not relevent.

You fail to grasp the purpose of an analogy. Many analogies are not plausible. They don't have to be. They merely have to illustrate or clarify a point. Mine does that. Furthermore, the President can order the military into domestic action, and does. So, my hypothetical isn't as implausible as you suppose.

>>Since everyone else seems to be insistent on evoking Goodwin's Law: What if Adolf Hitler rose from the grave and restarted the 3rd Reich? That just as improbable, and just as irreverent

No, you're dodging an issue by arguing with some point nobody is making. THAT is a liberal tactic if ever I saw one.

>>I never implied what they are doing is wrong. You did.

Exactly. And then you gave a very poor justification for their wrongful actions. I have captured the relevant parts below for your review.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
MaximumMike
June 10, 2013 at 11:06am

Wrong, the government eavesdropping on me without cause at all is an issue.

Reply

The Mac
June 10, 2013 at 11:08am

They arent evesdropping on YOU.

They are evesdropping on EVERYONE.

you arent special enough for them to care.

lol

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I claimed it was an issue for the government to eavesdrop on me. You claimed that it was not because they were eavesdropping on everyone. I then asked you if, by extension, you thought it would also not be an issue if the government enslaved the entire American public, just so long as they did it to everyone. Since then you have been obfuscating the dialogue and dodging the question.

avatar

The Mac

I was just being funny, i was not implying that everyone vs one person was at issue.

The patriot act gives them both the right, and the legal standing to do so. Be it on individual, or everyone. Its irrelevant.

Your bizarre implausible analogy (an analogy generally uses a believable comparative, not wild fiction) is still not relevant.

And for the record; I am a conservative.

avatar

goodtime

Mike, no, because the government spying only affects you if you are doing something illegal. Otherwise, they will pass over your information and do nothing with it.

avatar

MaximumMike

Really? How can you convince me the government will not abuse my information? Are you really going to pretend this kind of stuff hasn't happened in the recent past? Why don't you look up some of the recent imminent domain seizure cases or review some of the slightly less recent IRS property seizure cases? Our government is full of corrupt people who abuse power, and I have little respect for anyone who makes a statement like yours.

If you would like to volunteer YOUR private communications to the federal government, by all means go right ahead. But keep your nose out of my affairs. If I do something illegal, the government can get a warrant to access that information. If not, what I do is none of your business or theirs.

avatar

armyof1ne

I do struggle with the fact this was classified information, but then again, what the government is doing is illegal, collecting information and using it to remove due process, Its to collect information on terrorists, but how many terrorists have they caught, how many terrorists are going to be like "lets go blow shit up" honestly, only one going to say that kinda stuff so bluntly in this day in age is a troll. The whole premise for it is poorly based. anyone with half a brain cell would know that in person is the only way to communicate about doing anything illegal, or using an untraceable tracfone or something like that.
I don't think its in the nations interests to remove all privacy on the internet(for standard users) to look for something they will never find, unless the terrorists are retarded or something(har har, they blow themselves up, that doesnt mean they are retarded)
i cannot say he is a hero, he did what he felt needed to be done, i would hope everyone else in the nation would have the balls to do what he did, especially about something like this which in itself is wrong in many ways. Was it the right call vs the law? i can say he just brought to light what most of us already knew... I don't think he should be judged when obama stated he wanted transparency, i believe this is in-line with one of obama's promises to the people, i would suggest he pardon him.

avatar

The Mac

Its still pretty debatable whether its illegal or not.

The Patriot act has given them pretty broad powers, however until someone has actually been prosecuted based on evidence obtained through PRISM, its not going to reach court for review of due process.

Just because some people dont like it (im not a big fan either) doesnt make it illegal.

Dont forget, due process is not applicable to foreign nationals, so as long as its not domestic terrorism, there isnt any due process issues.

avatar

armyof1ne

so then, if they are monitoring everyone, they are expecting domestic terrorism as well, see where im going?
I do like the idea that they are kinda watchin out, but where does the line end, once you open "pandora's box" is there a stopping point, thats what concerns me most, i mean it could easily start up gestapo like BS. it could be easily used as tool of oppression, especially since they have not been open about it and transparent about it, it makes me concerned more than anything.

avatar

armyof1ne

so then, if they are monitoring everyone, they are expecting domestic terrorism as well, see where im going?
I do like the idea that they are kinda watchin out, but where does the line end, once you open "pandora's box" is there a stopping point, thats what concerns me most, i mean it could easily start up gestapo like BS. it could be easily used as tool of oppression, especially since they have not been open about it and transparent about it, it makes me concerned more than anything.

avatar

The Mac

i agree its a slippery slope...Hopefully the judiciary system will stay on top of it.

as far as transparency goes, do you really want to advertise to the terrorists what you are doing so they can attempt to circumvent it?

avatar

armyof1ne

lol, i get that, but all the companies could easily monitor stuff before prism, so... i just find that point kinda moot. Im just uneasy about the whole thing, and i still feel that he should probably be pardoned by obama if he was truly a "transparent" president.

avatar

armyof1ne

I summon engel to give his opinion on how wrong i am, lol

avatar

The Mac

yeah, Engel has been surprising quiet in this one...

lol

As far as pardoning goes, i dunno.

It might set a bad precedent.

If hes not prosecuted, it may give others the impetus to reveal more state secrets that actually might get people killed next time.

avatar

armyof1ne

rain on my parade, lol... yeah, that would be the only drawback, he would have to make it extremely clear that this was done because of the transparency deal, or something... if it was anything else that caused possible harm in the field, i wouldnt have considered it.

avatar

Mungo

I was willing to listen to his side of the story until I read he thinks the US government might hire Chinese gangsters to have him killed.
Clearly he is a paranoid nutcase.

avatar

The Mac

He was discharged form the military for medical reasons - 2 broken legs during a training accident in boot camp. Makes you wonder...

Then he starts working for the CIA?

im starting to smell a bulshit here...

avatar

Jaeger_CDN

I just find it somewhat convenient that this all came out right when most of the news was slamming the Chinese for all sorts of cyber espionage.

Whether he did it for altruistic or personal reasons is immaterial to the fact that it was done in the first place.

avatar

damicatz

I see the statist pigs are out in full force.

avatar

kerndaddy

well, to king George III, George Washington and the minutemen at Lexington were traitors too. there will always be those who can't see clearly and who blindly support the actions of tyrants. after all, it was a minority of americans who supported the original rebellion.

to say that the guy who sacrifices his life to reveal the truth to the American people is a traitor and a criminal is insane.

this government has lied, cheated, and schemed to destroy the American people. they flood us with TENS of millions of foreigners who hate us. they openly try to disarm us. they ship fifty five thousand factories to foreign nations in order to avoid paying the average American decent wages. they get busted torturing people in Iraq at abu grhaib. they get busted intentionally sending guns into mexico that are eventually used to kill American border patrol agents, just to have an excuse to trample the second amendment. the revelations this guy made prove that the government is in violation of the fourth amendment. the f.b.i. has been busted tainting forensic evidence in order to falsify convictions. the internal revenue service has just been busted using tyranny to silence patriot and religious groups merely for practicing their first amendment rights.

I could continue all day but I won't. despite all of this there are those who call THIS GUY the criminal and traitor? no sir, it is our government who are the criminals and traitors here.

avatar

The Mac

Nothing any other nation on the planet doesnt do to an even greater extreme.

Goverments will be governments.

To think this guy didnt break the law, and his oath (signed and sworn on the bible btw) is the definition of INSANE.

Anyone who thinks this guy is a hero has a screw loose, and is just plain amoral.

Trying to redirect the blame by saying the government is the criminal agency changes nothing.

You people want to hold the government accountable but not this traitorous scum? That is the height of liberal hypocrisy..

The Law is reason, free from passion - Aristotle.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Nothing any other nation on the planet doesnt do to an even greater extreme.

And that makes it ok?

>>Goverments will be governments.

And thugs will be thugs, and pirates will be pirates, and whistle blowers will be whistle blowers, and patriots will be patriots.

>>To think this guy didnt break the law, and his oath (signed and sworn on the bible btw) is the definition of INSANE.

To think this program is ok, just because the government has decided without the consent of the people to implement it is unconstitutional. To think that history is not full of people who dissented against tyrannical laws is ignorant.

>>Anyone who thinks this guy is a hero has a screw loose, and is just plain amoral.

Or, "Anyone who disagrees with me deserves to be beheaded." What's the point of making statements like that?

>>Trying to redirect the blame by saying the government is the criminal agency changes nothing.

Trying to pretend that what the government is doing isn't criminal (or it should be and would have been only a very short while go) only contributes to the problem.

>>You people want to hold the government accountable but not this traitorous scum? That is the height of liberal hypocrisy..

If he had somehow betrayed the interests of the nation, I could agree with you. But all he did was oust something the government was doing against the American people that was highly unethical and extremely unpopular. Let's not forget that it is the will of the American people that reigns supreme in this land. And any government that will not obey the will of the American people is an illegal government in my opinion. I don't care how it has legislated itself into a position of ignoring us. If it does so, what it is doing is illegal and unauthorized, despite phonebook-sized bills that say it is perfectly within its rights to abuse us.

>>The Law is reason, free from passion - Aristotle.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.
-Thomas Jefferson

avatar

The Mac

The patriot act has help up in supreme court.

They are doing nothing illegal.

end of story.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>The patriot act has help up in supreme court.
They are doing nothing illegal.

Are you a thinking man? Do you believe the system our forefathers established is the one we should follow or the one corrupt politicians are telling you to follow?

Thomas Jefferson said this, "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution say this, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, pray tell me how you reconcile the wording of the Constitution, its intended interpretation as given by one of its authors, and the PRISM program? What they are doing is indeed illegal whether you are willing to recognize that fact or not.

avatar

The Mac

I have no comment on what our forefathers envisioned, i was not there and can only offer a biased opinion.

The legallity of the NSA's action is what is at task.

From a moral standpoint, certainly, its not right.

But that changes nothing.

avatar

MaximumMike

You weren't present when the Patriot Act was written either, and any opinion about what that document means would be just as biased. So, if you cannot be sure what they're doing violates the Constitution, how are you so sure the Patriot Act actually authorizes what they're doing? And if you think that what they're doing is morally wrong, how can you condemn the person who exposes them?

avatar

The Mac

Beacause ive read it, its pretty straight forward.

avatar

MaximumMike

I've read the Constitution. It's much more straightforward.

avatar

The Mac

I disagree, as would most judges, as after 200+ years, we are still interpreting it.

avatar

MaximumMike

You and any judge who muddies the Constitution are simply ignoring Thomas Jefferson, who advised us to interpret it straightforward. The hypocrisy that lies in your insistence on interpreting the Constitution loosely, while interpreting the Patriot Act narrowly is your problem. But what bothers me is your failure to be able to formulate your own opinion when presented with historical facts and asked to expound on them. I asked how you reconciled your current belief that the Patriot Act (or PRISM) was constitutional with the actual wording of the Constitution and a direct quote form one of its author. But rather than offer any real defense of your claims, because there isn't one, you simply declined to comment saying you were uncertain of the document's meaning. But yet you can be so certain of some other document, which threatens to violate our most basic rights as Americans. It seems to me that you aren't interested in intelligent discourse (because you don't answer questions or run away from your own statements saying you were just kidding), but rather in hammering others for their beliefs without the decency of standing behind your own. I'm sorry, but whether you claim to be conservative or not (and most of what you've been saying on this thread isn't conservative), I cannot respect you intellectually.

avatar

The Mac

Tl;dr

whatever dude...

Two consecutive administrations (Bush - Conservative/Republican and Obama - Liberal/Democrat) as well as the Supreme court have found the patriot act constitutional.

If you want to pretend you know better, you keep smoking that crack. It will serve you well later in life.

im done with this discussion...