Snowden Is A Hero: NSA Phone Capture And PRISM Are Blatantly Illegal

[Psychopants]

@Evil_Captor

Had no idea you were such an icon of courage!

I’m new here.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@brickbacon

This has nothing to do with government, and more about people willingly trading privacy for technology and convenience. After all, everything the NSA has is data that is ALREADY being collected by private companies. Government can hardly encroach on territory willingly ceded by the public to various entities; entities that have and will continue to use the info more often and for more nefarious purposes than the government likely would. …

Well that’s the sort of discussion we should be having.

I could respond to the substance of this (and other well-argued material in your post), but it would be extra-topical. My point was that perceptions of those background issues color one’s perceptions of Snowden’s heroism. You may or may not be closer to the truth than my presentation was (my views aren’t really settled, to be quite honest). But given my current take, I have some sympathy for Snowden’s predicament.

@MfM

Broader context matters here. First, let’s set aside Manning: he was a troll. Snowden in contrast took care to both filter out material that would compromise particular agents in the field (unlike Cheney’s gang) and hand material only to reporters with a national security background (unlike Manning).

@brickbacon

How do you know this? Cite?

Good and fair question. To be more specific, I recalled those sorts of claims being made by Snowden early in the scandal. I give them credence because if there was any agent in the field compromised, we would know about it by now. And furthermore, Greenwald does have experience on national security matters. If anybody wants to argue for example that the release of the PRISM Powerpoint presentation did lasting harm to US security (as opposed to passing inconvenience, something I don’t challenge) I encourage them to post it. Recall that I don’t have a problem with giving him a felony conviction and 5 years in a low security US prison.

Googling, I find the following quotes. Snowden, early June:
[QUOTE= Barton Gellman of WAPO]
Despite our previous dispute about publishing the PRISM document in full, Snowden said he did not intend to release a pile of unedited documents upon the world. “I don’t desire to enable the Bradley Manning argument that these were released recklessly and unreviewed,” he said.
[/QUOTE]
Snowden also gave an interview with the Guardian: I read the TPM article:

@TPM

Snowden Said He Did Not Reveal Any Operations Against ‘Legitimate Military Targets’

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald got the the live chat going on Monday by asking Snowden why he chose to go to Hong Kong, and why he then disclosed “US hacking on their research facilities and universities?” Snowden defended his disclosures by saying that he did not reveal any operations against what he termed “legitimate military targets.”

“I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous,” Snowden said. “These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn’t declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we’re not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the ‘consent of the governed’ is meaningless.

Again, that shows filtering. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/snowden_live_chat.php

My claim is falsifiable or at least capable of being undermined with empirical facts.

[BrokenBriton]

I saw this last weekend and, as a layman, thought it insightful on the continuing lies of the political class:

The NSA/GCHQ metadata reassurances are breathtakingly cynical
Over the past two weeks, I have lost count of the number of officials and government ministers who, when challenged about internet surveillance by GCHQ and the NSA, try to reassure their citizens by saying that the spooks are “only” collecting metadata, not “content”. Only two conclusions are possible from this: either the relevant spokespersons are unbelievably dumb or they are displaying a breathtaking contempt for their citizenry.

The NSA/GCHQ metadata reassurances are breathtakingly cynical

[Molotok]

Well, being on the run seems to have affected SNOWden’s sanity: - YouTube

[d1a1s1]

@Molotok

Well, being on the run seems to have affected SNOWden’s sanity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtILxBszyf8

Best comment: “Go Snowden! Licky Boom Boom Down!”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@BrokenBriton

I saw this last weekend and, as a layman, thought it insightful on the continuing lies of the political class:

The NSA/GCHQ metadata reassurances are breathtakingly cynical | Big data | The Guardian

What’s insightful about it? Let me ask you this: would you rather the government know who you’re calling, or what you told them?

[Grumman]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What’s insightful about it? Let me ask you this: would you rather the government know who you’re calling, or what you told them?

I’d rather they knew neither. Just like if I went out for coffee with a friend, having some dickhead keeping tabs on who I associate with would be bad enough without also eavesdropping on what I’m saying.

[BrokenBriton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What’s insightful about it? Let me ask you this: would you rather the government know who you’re calling, or what you told them?

What on earth are you talking about; neither is even remotely close to being the business of government in any sane government.

[BrokenBriton]

Fwiw, I keep having flashbacks to that time when working class Americans on here were opposing health care reforms … the extend of indoctrination sometimes seems pretty extraordinary.

Manufactured consent, in spades.

[CurtC]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What’s insightful about it? Let me ask you this: would you rather the government know who you’re calling, or what you told them?

Let me ask you: would you rather the government perform unreasonable searches and siezures of your property, or quarter soldiers in your house?

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What’s insightful about it? Let me ask you this: would you rather the government know who you’re calling, or what you told them?

The author hopes to disabuse the reader of the common notion that metadata offers only some minimal, worthless-on-its-own set of information. I can’t judge the moral rightness of metadata collection (and so I’ll demur from judging Snowden himself), but the truth is that metadata can paint a surprisingly detailed picture of someone — it’d be worthless otherwise. So cries of “it’s just metadata, calm down” simply won’t cut it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s perfectly fair. The distinction is that collecting metadata has always been fair game from a constitutional perspective, though (I can’t speak on whether that’s true in English law.)

Let me ask you: would you rather the government perform unreasonable searches and siezures of your property, or quarter soldiers in your house?

Both of these are constitutional violations. Finding out who you called without a warrant is not, while wiretapping without a warrant is.

[CurtC]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The distinction is that collecting metadata has always been fair game from a constitutional perspective, though (I can’t speak on whether that’s true in English law.)

I can see that the collecting of information that is public could be fair game. For example, the FBI/NSA/CIA doesn’t need a warrant to observe me when I leave my house and where I go. However, the metadata about cell phone calls belonged to Verizon, right? How can any agency get a warrant that Verizon has to hand over that metadata to the government, unless there is a specific target of their investigation (and then only get data connected to that target)?

That’s what seems to me to be clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I just don’t see how the FISA court could grant that warrant and be within the Constitution.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@SenorBeef

The whole focus on Snowden and what his character and motivations are, in any case, are a sideshow promoted by the government and media to distract us from the actual substance here. The fact that it seems like it’s a bigger point of public discussion whether or not Snowden is a narcissist vs proof that the government is abusing the secret carte blanche powers we gave it post 9/11 is pathetic and shows why our government can tread all over us at will.

I don’t get it. How is the government treading over us at will, unless someone explains how all this gathered data, meta or otherwise, is being used post facto to harm people? IOW I worry far less about the accumulation and possession of this data than about how it would be used to proceed against specific people or organizations.

Compared with the focused snooping by employers into workers’ Facebook pages and similar websites, not to mention demanding passwords in some cases, this whole NSA thing is a bagatelle.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

I don’t get it. How is the government treading over us at will, unless someone explains how all this gathered data, meta or otherwise, is being used post facto to harm people? IOW I worry far less about the accumulation and possession of this data than about how it would be used to proceed against specific people or organizations.

IOW, you should care about the procedures that are in place to prevent abuse, in case one of our public servants decides to compile an enemies list. Senatorial oversight isn’t impressive if NSA leaders feel comfortable lying to them, as we now know thanks to Snowden’s revelations. Court oversight isn’t impressive unless they are physically difficult to bypass. Has any outside consultant (ha!) audited this system?

Separately, I’d like somebody to delineate the actual harm Snowden’s revelations have done. I’ll start.

1. China can point fingers at the US and say they were spying on them too…
   …because in fact they were.

2. China can point fingers at the US and say that the US was spying on non-military targets…
   …because in fact they were.

3. Our European allies can wag their fingers at us and say that we were spying on them during non-military meetings…
   … because we were.
   This one is more interesting because, let’s face it, the Chinese knew that they were spying on us and had some sense that we were spying on them. In future economic meetings, I suspect G-20 members may make less use of adjoining internet cafes. Mercantilistically speaking, this will harm economic interests that are well connected with the US government. Ironically, it could benefit US consumers.

4. Terrorists learn that we were trying to monitor their communications…
   … which I would downplay, because it’s fairly clear that they knew this anyway and proceeded accordingly.

5. No institution can function effectively if midlevel employees routinely leak classified information. I take this one more seriously (and agree that all these leaks have costs), which is why I don’t have a problem with handing a 5 year sentence at a low security prison to Snowden. As far as white collar crimes are considered, this is not a short sentence. I do wonder if NSA’s security procedures need tightening: if Snowden clearly should not have been hired then we have some pretty big problems as most spies don’t out themselves.

---

Picking nit: I don’t see it established that Snowden lied about his education, given incentives to smear the guy. Check out the yahoo article. An anonymous source claims that Snowden says his resume stated that he, “…attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University…” John Hopkins has no such record. But check this out: Tracey Reeves, a spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins, said that the university could find no record that Snowden had taken classes there.

She added that Snowden might have taken vocational training courses from a private, for-profit entity called Advanced Career Technologies, which operated under the name Computer Career Institute at Johns Hopkins. Reeves said Johns Hopkins ended its relationship with the company in 2009, and that the company appears to have shut down in 2012. I don’t know what happened. But given that no reporter has seen his resume, the case that he lied on it has not been made. To be complete there are 2 other examples of a similar level of ambiguity.

To be clear, I encourage Snowden’s critics to make their case. I concede that my 5 point treatment is off the top of my head and is not rigorous.

[BrokenBriton]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

I don’t get it. How is the government treading over us at will, unless someone explains how all this gathered data, meta or otherwise, is being used post facto to harm people?

The government has two policemen assigned to you and just you. One is standing over your shoulder and watching everything you do online. The second is standing at your front door watching, reading your mail, and writing down who comes in, who leaves, where you go, who you meet, how often, where and when: thyey know your friends, family, back accounts, fav websites - pretty much all they want to know.

What does that mean? No one knows because they only time in history that kind of knowledge was held against the people was in places like East Germany.

At the end of the day, it’s no ones business what you do, least of all government and government agencies who are supposed to be serving you not prying into every corner of your life.

[Grumman]

@Measure_for_Measure

5. No institution can function effectively if midlevel employees routinely leak classified information.

Good! If the NSA is a rogue organisation that will commit felonies to avoid senatorial oversight, crippling their ability to operate is a good thing.

Picking nit: I don’t see it established that Snowden lied about his education, given incentives to smear the guy. Check out the yahoo article. An anonymous source claims that Snowden says his resume stated that he, “…attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University…”

This alone is reason to dismiss the claim as smear tactics. When somebody specifically makes themselves the enemy of a spy agency, any unverified, anonymous claim specifically aimed at discrediting him isn’t worth the hot air used to spout it.

[QuickSilver]

Well, “the hero” is heroically filing for political asylum in Russia:

Mr. Snowden had expressed interest in applying for asylum in Russia after his first week at the airport but quickly reconsidered it after hearing the Kremlin’s conditions, Russian officials have said. President Vladimir V. Putin, who has not appeared eager to grant Mr. Snowden asylum, has said that Mr. Snowden could stay in Russia only if he agreed to “cease his work aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners.”

Vyacheslav A. Nikonov, a pro-Kremlin political scientist who attended the meeting, said that Mr. Snowden now seemed comfortable agreeing to that condition.

“He said, ‘yes, he is aware of the conditions, and it is very easy for him to answer ‘yes,'” Mr. Nikonov said. “He agrees with the conditions. First, because all he did to hurt the interests of the United States is in the past, and what the journalists are doing now is not his fault. And second, he has no intention of hurting the United States more, since he is a loyal citizen.”

So, yeah… it’s all in the past.

[Psychopants]

How does one unring a bell?

[Evil_Captor]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

I don’t get it. How is the government treading over us at will, unless someone explains how all this gathered data, meta or otherwise, is being used post facto to harm people? IOW I worry far less about the accumulation and possession of this data than about how it would be used to proceed against specific people or organizations.

Compared with the focused snooping by employers into workers’ Facebook pages and similar websites, not to mention demanding passwords in some cases, this whole NSA thing is a bagatelle.

No, it’s not. Suppose I were to run for Congress with a corrupt, unscrupulous administration in the White House, who had appointed a political lackey to head the NSA. And he decides I am likely to win, so he has his NSA buddy pull up my metadata and give it a good hard look. And the metadata shows that I have an adult blog under an alias that is not vanilla. You think that won’t somehow be “discovered” by other means and then used against me? Of COURSE it will!

And that does not require knowing the CONTENTS of the blog, just the metadata. (How would they know I owned it? Because some of the pages I visit on the blog are editing pages, which only the owner of the blog could access – which is metadata.)

If you’ve ever made a phone call to a person known to deal drugs, if you’ve ever called a woman who is a prostitute, you’re vulnerable via metadata.

Some of you people are so naive. You think because you trust the present administration, that no administration ever will violate your trust. And you think metadata is unrevealing.