We’ve already covered this ground fairly thoroughly. Most of us do not believe avoiding punishment for an heroic act invalidates the heroism.
I’d tend toward retribution rather than “punishment”.
How exactly is that falsifiable? Even if we concede that he THINKS he filtered out information, he is in no position to know if that is actually true. Additionally, he is a known liar even in the best of circumstances. Why should any trust what he says, or that his judgement is sound?
I don’t think anyone has said metadata isn’t valuable or important. What people have said is that because such data can only be linked to a individual via a warrant, and because such information is being used to screen for incriminating behavior related to terrorism, the intrusion is relatively minimal. If this information was inherently private, people would not voluntarily allow others to collect it, sell it, give it away, and/or utilize it to make money. People have collectively decided that the tradeoffs are worth it. That bargain has nothing to do with government, it has to do with people wanting a shiny phone, and free email and social media applications. In fact, it would be much worse if government didn’t prevent these companies from collecting and using even more data.
As I said, the accusations of lying are problematic in their own right. There is evidence that such things were shared and discussing in private senate committees and other appropriate venues. But the idea that, when asked a direct question about a classified matter, the NSA should tell the truth, or demure to answer the question is just not practical. A non-answer is basically answering in the affirmative. There should be a better way to provide oversight, but these public inquisitions are not going to work.
How would you even do such a thing?
The statements are coming from people who allegedly had access to these materials:
It’s pretty clear he did fudge his resume based on this article and others.
This would be nice, but the fact is that this reality if not possible anymore in the age of big data. People know this, and they generally don’t care. Privacy standards change over time, and it’s clear that people are willing to trade privacy of free shit and safety.
Two problems with this: One, things like that are routinely found out without NSA help. What you suggest is far more risky and problematic than this hypothetical politician’s enemies just going to their friend at Google or Yahoo to do the same thing. Which again highlights why these paranoid fantasies are generally not worth worrying about. If you have an administration that corrupt, they could just plant drugs on you, or have you arrested. Or pay someone to destroy your reputation in any other number of ways. I am not sure why you thinking giving a someone who has the ability to start wars and launch nukes one extra relatively minor power is meaningful at all. Remember, there is no question that the NSA has the power to gather intelligence on an individual; what is being discussed is whether that can morally collect info on EVERYONE without probably cause. Your scenario could happen whether or not the NSA is collecting metadata on the public, and thus had NOTHING to do with wholesale metadata collection (and this discussion).
Second, why are you assuming a politician’s right to privacy trumps the electorate’s right to know who they are voting for? If you want to live a private life that you know the public disagrees with, don’t put yourself in a position to be judged by them. Why shouldn’t I know whether my congressman cheats on his taxes, visits underage prostitutes, or looks at child porn? Even if we assume he is not doing something illegal (eg. adultery), the fact that he has a hidden life often makes him subject to extortion and other things. This is why transparency is expected from most government officials. The idea that guys like Spitzer, Weiner, etc. have been screwed by people invading their privacy is just dumb.
That’s really not how it works. The algorithms they use are far smarter than that, and more importantly, are used (AFAIK) for use in serious crimes related to terrorism. If your doomsday scenario were to come, don’t you think they would already be using this to destroy political enemies and arrest child pornographers, drug dealers, and murderers? You can crow are you want about potential abuses, but it’s the power that is corrupting, not the ability to abuse power more efficiently. Nixon didn’t need metadata to spy on people did he? Everything you worry about has happened, and will continue to happen in the absence of metadata. Additionally, such incriminating information can be obtained in a much easier fashion without having to involve lots of high ranking government officials who would need to risk their lives and freedom to possibly catch someone doing something illegal, immoral, or unsavory. What you suggest is basically the most dangerous, cumbersome, and stupid way of trying to destroy your enemies.
No, I think people realize that old-school notions are privacy are dead.
I’m not fond of tit for tat responses, but…
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. In Cheney’s case we can point to a specific person (Valerie Plame) who was exposed as an agent in the field and specify the damage to attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. We know what Snowden has released. It should be possible to elucidate the harms caused by those releases. That’s my point.
Caveat: some people don’t share that info. Not everybody has a Safeway Rewards card for example. An this so-called collective decision wasn’t always made in a methodical manner.
Then you agree with me: the status quo is inadequate to the task. For me this isn’t about saying the NSA is E-e-e-e-e-e-vil. It’s about getting the proper procedures in place.
Appoint an inspector general. Get the GAO on the case. Mandate reviews of secret court decisions by somebody appointed by the National Lawyers Guild, rotating every 2 years. Red team/blue team the process. We need an advocate for those who think that 3200 deaths over 20 years is something to be managed, rather than a good excuse to dismantle the constitution.
Those statements were by anonymous sources: you can bet they were spies. Smears are SOP in these situations. It’s not like Snowden will sue for defamation. Let’s not be naive.
No it’s not. I say he didn’t and my word is as good as some anonymous source - better in fact. Silliness aside, I take issue at calling him a liar based on some resume exaggeration, especially when no blatant falsehoods have been uncovered.
So if 100,000 morons sign up for Bonzi Buddy, that means the NSA can do what it wants?
You seem to have a shaky grasp of our experience with the Watergate scandal.
Overall: NSA / private sector privacy is worth debating in its own thread. Contrary to the tone of my replies, brickbacon’s stance isn’t crazy and may even be better than mine. I do think it merits scrutiny.
Why would they put that information out there? Can you point to any spy whose victims, and the damage their leaks created, were outlined in public? Plame was different in that it was personal retaliation. Even with well known spies like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, we know of only a few of the people who were compromised as a result of their actions. Why would the government outline all the specific damage Snowden may have caused in public? Even if he “filtered out” all the things that would out operatives, do you really think the US government trusts his discretion enough to leave those people in the field? If you were a spy in China, and you know some file Snowden stole had you name in it, are you comfortable risking your life on the fact that he will never intentionally or unintentionally burn you?
A Safeway rewards card? Is that a joke? How many people bother to stay off Facebook, avoid Apple products, and use private search engines? Very few. It’s not that hard, but people don’t want to compromise the product experience, etc.
What decisions are?
Well, no. I meant public oversight in the way some are arguing for is not really possible. There is already significant oversight. What makes you think an additional level of oversight would be meaningful? All of this talk about who watches the watchers really highlights the fundamental issue: if you don’t trust the government, the individual people in government, or the system of checks and balances, no additional level of oversight is gonna help.
What are you talking about?
What makes you think the reporters didn’t verify the information? Do you think they were just naive enough to accept claims without any verification? It’s their reputations on the line. Furthermore, the fact that you are clinging to some possibility that he may have completed classes at an affiliated university when even his contention that he would have completed his graduate work by x date when he was planning on leaking evidence the entire time is enough to call him a liar. He has lied countless times while demonstrating himself to be a gutless coward, yet you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt? That is naive.
Besides, don’t you think if the government were going to smear him with lies, they could do a bit better than, “he lied on his resume”; something I am sure a good percentage of people do? Don’t you think they’d say he is a Chinese spy, or that be touches little boys, or that his leak led to X number of people dying? I don’t get why you think the GOVERNMENT saying they can’t verify his resume would really change most people’s minds.
Your word means nothing. Correct me if I am wrong, but you don’t know him, nor have your had any access to the materials in question.
You don’t have to rely on that to know he is a liar. He has lied about several issues, most central, his willingness to protect the secrets of the US. He lied to get a job, knowing he was going to leak information. He is not some innocent bystander who happened to stumble upon some government secret. He went in intending to betray the trust of his employer and the country. Why you trust anything that comes out of that guy’s mouth just shows how diluted and brainwashed you are.
No, it means the privacy you cede is a choice that you made. The NSA can’t do whatever it wants now, but even if they could, they are using information most people are WILLINGLY giving away. It’s like being mad that the government can search through your trash.
I was not referring to Watergate. I was talking about Nixon spying on people.
The reality is it’s easy to address and deal with. You have something called a law. Usually based on the extremely obvious notion that the right to privacy, inc. data protection, is a (fundamental) human right.
That’s the starting position, which may then be amended by an appropriate court order based on transparent guidelines in specific cases.
Why are you citing the Council of Europe, a group that doesn’t even have the power to make binding laws, in a thread about the NSA “spying” on Americans? That’s to say nothing of this idea that the things the NSA was collecting violate a “fundamental right to privacy”.
Why the fuck would you collect it - a hobby?
You don’t think privacy is a fundamental human right?
No, I do not think absolute privacy is a fundamental human right. Not only have the courts confirmed this, but we can look back only a few hundred years ago to a day when the idea of privacy was basically an alien concept. Besides, this has little to do with privacy as the information we are talking about NEVER WAS PRIVATE. Several tech companies already had this data. Information that you, Google, and who knows how many Google employees have access to is not private. While I doubt most would want all of those things subject to public scrutiny, that is not happening today anyway. I know of nobody who thinks their behavior online and on the phone are not monitored in one way or another. The idea that such things are inherently private is not just logical or practical.
I’m puzzled by your response. The security consequences of the acts of Cheney’s gang, Ames, Hanssen and the Rosenbergs are readily identifiable. I could go through their wiki articles, but I can’t see why I should bother.
I know people who choose Google plus over Facebook. I know people who are careful to set the security setting properly in Facebook. I use Duck Duck Go. Many people don’t do these sorts of things because they simply don’t know better. I recall an article about an app which lifted facebook info for women in their 20s and plotted them on a map. It was used for pick ups. Its existence horrified many-- suggesting that they shared info not so much through deliberate action but rather by a lack of due diligence. I don’t see why the government should justify collecting massive amounts of data on the basis of the half conscious behavior of some of our citizenry.
Most all non-classified regulations are the result of procedures that have been codified for quite some time.
There is no specificity here, only assertions.
I’m saying the Patriot Act was created in the shadow on 9/11, when there was a possibility that the US was packed with sleeper cells. It wasn’t. Security tends to ratchet upwards: it’s time to shift the balance back towards freedom.
Oh really. It’s an anonymous source we’re discussion. And it’s off of yahoo for gosh sakes. You’re suppose to read such things critically.
There is a lack of specificity to your claims.
Oh, I agree. I’m saying that nothing beats information of negative value.
My understanding is that Snowden is a bit of glibertarian. Not the sort of person that I have too much respect for. I sort of doubt that he fabricated the PRISM powerpoint presentation though.
NUCLEON intercepts the spoken word and stores it at the NSA. I don’t know the details of that program as it’s only come to light recently AFAIK. PRISM consolidates data from a number of internet giants. And somehow methinks the NSA wants to do more than deliver timely advertisements.
And I was alluding to Nixon’s enemy lists. They never amounted to much because he lacked the capability to bend the IRS to his will. Checks, balances and oversight and all that. I know of no such persuasive safeguards in the present context.
No, they are not. You know only what has been deemed safe to talk about after the breach. The fact that you think you know doesn’t mean you do. Much of the stuff related to the most recent spied on that list is still classified.
And? Most people don’t even bother to do those things.
I disagree. They don’t know the possible consequences of sharing data because their trust hasn’t been breached in a way they find discomforting. EVERYONE knows these companies collect this data, and if they don’t it’s willful ignorance. They are required to tell you this, and most often, you must agree to these things to utilize the service. It’s not that people don’t know better, they don’t care. At least they don’t care enough to change their behavior. If you don’t believe me, look to see if Apple, Google, Microsoft, and/or Facebook sales suffered as a result of these leaks outlining their complicity. If you are so sure people care about these things, why aren’t people changing their behavior?
Because it allows them to keep people safer, utilize resources more efficiently, and harass people less often in real life.
It’s been reauthorized since then. Even if your idea had merit, there has been, and will be several opportunities to rectify this.
There are likely anonymous because they still work for the NSA, and cannot go on record. Either way, this story had been reported in several places. Again, please explain to me why you are so willing to trust a KNOWN LIAR rather than a report from a news source? Besides, as I said before, the idea that a resume fudge would be an effective smear against this guy strains credibility. Don’t you think if they were gonna make up lies about him, they would go for something more hurtful to his cause? I honestly don’t get why you are so hung up on this fairly minor detail. Next, they are gonna claim he likes Limp Bizkit, farts in elevators, and stole peoples’ lunches from the work fridge.
I think I was pretty specific. Your ideas for oversight are foolish, misguided, inefficient, and ineffective. The idea that one more level of bureaucracy will stop abuses when there are already hundreds in place is nonsense.
Did I said he did? What I said was he is a KNOWN, PROVEN LIAR. Yet, you are so apt to trust his judgement and veracity for some strange reason.
Did anyone suggest they were trying to deliver advertisements, or are you just acting stupid to make this conversation more tiresome and redundant? They are doing these things, by and large, in the process of terrorism investigations. I just don’t get if you think this is a matter of theoretical harm or actual harm? Because I can’t see that many actual victims given the scope of the surveillance. Certainly no worse in terms of collateral damage than giving cops the ability to shoot and arrest people, or the government the ability to take your land. All those things are abused, but it doesn’t mean that extending that right to government is a bad idea on the whole.
So Nixon couldn’t do it, but future presidents will? Isn’t the fact that his efforts blew up in his face pretty clear evidence that such things cannot be done in secret over long periods of time? There will always be someone to betray your trust, take advantage of the situation, or leak info on principle or for other reasons. More oversight is less effective in achieving just outcomes and transparency than the inherent dishonesty of criminals and liars, and the consciences of people in a position to act.
[QUOTE=Snowden]
But if you realize that that’s the world you helped create and it’s gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn’t matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that’s applied.
[/QUOTE]
Motivations of a hero, actions of a hero.
I’m having a similar discussion with a friend on Facebook who is in the intelligence community and this is what he had to say:
I think he makes some great points. Another friend had this to say about snowdens “access”:
^ Okay, but - and sorry to bring this back to point - what does ‘your friend’ say about untargeted mass surveillance of the civilian population, denied by the boss of those doing it to representatives of the people, and after which statement the President (who signed off on it) remained silent on that denial?
Um, I’ll ask him?
My response, however, would be that this is nothing new and the “boss” admitted to what they were doing which was also echoed by the President, or Presidents, who signed off on it as well as the american public who voted for these presidents. That’s the easy answer.
For the tougher answer I defer to “Measure for Measure” who has, on every account, explained my stance on the whole thing.
FWIW, I really enjoyed your contributions to this thread. It can be difficult to argue eloquently for something that seems obvious to yourself.
You don’t seem at all versed in the principles of data protection. And, with all due respect, you seem awfully parochial about this issue.
‘privacy’ in this context means - broadly - the entity you choose to share details with has a legal duty to not share that data. That is pretty much the case across Europe already, although the standard varies.
The problem for everyone is the USA doesn’t protect its own citizens and, by extension because so many large internet companies are based in the US - the rest of the world isn’t protected either.
It’s really a pretty basic social and legal concept, simply executed.
This person has a handle on it:
FWIW, I’m not even American, and Snowden seems less a hero and more a rat who shat little balls of plague poop in the kitchen where he eats. And is now scurrying for cover.
right.
Glenn Greenwald says that Snowden possesses more documents that could do great harm to America, and that America should think twice before going after him:
Link to HuffPo article.
According to the article the documents appear to relate to how the US uses its telcos in South America to spy on people there. I"m not sure how much harm it might do to America. Maybe some cancelled contracts that will hurt Verizon’s bottom line … can’t say I’m shuddering. I hope America WILL lay off Snowden, but the rabidness of the attacks on Snowden on this, a purportedly left-leaning board, makes me doubt that.