I will if you promise to tweet me as soon as Snowden’s actions are directly linked to the bombing of a US city.
You’re missing the point of that sentence, which was pointing out that you were utterly wrong in your factual description, despite also being utterly cocksure about it.
The legality of surveilling American communications because they are swept up according to procedures approved by FISA but without approval of the actual foreign intelligence targets is a much more complicated question than the black-and-white question of whether you had your facts right. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it satisfies the Fourth Amendment or the statutory authority to proceed that way.
By that standard Snowden’s efforts fail because so far it hasn’t worked either to curtail the programs.
The big issue with your read of that is the excluded middle. Binney followed one path with no effect but he’s still free to travel and speak out against the programs including overseas. Snowden followed another path which got him an indictment and limits that make it harder for him to do some of the things Binney is still doing to speak out. Those aren’t the only two options.
Nonsense. The various post-Snowden responses to consumer demand* for privacy protection have have put a definite crimp in the programs, as evidenced by the risible (though delightfully entertaining) spectacle of assorted appartchiks running around setting their hair on fire and screaming that the sky is falling.
*As I noted before, this is a more meaningful indicator of actual public opinion that the random responses of what I presume to be the last few hundred people who haven’t figured out how to screen out the telemarkepollsterpests.
Good point that the knowledge did get private actions that make the same program less effective despite the program itself still being in place. It doesn’t speak to the main point of the excluded middle. Your point that Snowden didn’t have other options relies on not simply the fact that Binney’s actions didn’t work but also that there were absolutely no other options. I’m not even saying all the options in the middle were legal.
I think he’s a weasel. I’m no fan of his.
If you think they are always getting warrants to read emails and just collecting metadata and never reading it I have some real estate in the Bahamas for sale. Even the FBI director admitted as much.
He’s also against data encryption and lied about several cases, attempting to justify why in his mind it’s a bad thing.
I think Snowden did a good thing overall even if he went about it the wrong way, I don’t think he should be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison, idk maybe they can just give him probation like General Petraeus.
I totally understand that people oppose such intelligence efforts on principle, or believe that they ought to be against the law. However, so far, those who have claimed that their freedom has been harmed by such intelligence programs have not demonstrated to US courts that any harm has actually occurred.
This, of course, could change if new facts come to light. Or, the ruling of the Supreme Court may stand for a long time. Nonetheless, at this moment, nobody has actually shown that these programs caused them any actual harm.
Even this is not quite right. What they haven’t shown is harm that satisfies modern Article III standing rules. Many have shown that they (for various pragmatic reasons, like preserving their client’s confidentiality) have spent time and money taking counter-measures to prevent improper surveillance that was likely targeting them. It just turns out that such harm doesn’t give them legal standing, according to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
I did consider adding the words “as far as the law is concerned” after “actual harm.” So yes, i think you’re right to clarify. But your version of harm (in terms of countermeasures) is unbelievably broad. If I see you walking on my street each day, and I decide to put bars on my windows so you can’t break in, I would laugh at the notion that my security precautions are the result of you causing me harm.
Well, the authorities established by the elected government of the people have indicated the legal penalty for that offense – a few days’ income in fines and a couple years of probation. That settles that.
He is an absolute American hero, and deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our security keeping those “secrets” wasn’t. We know this because they were stolen by Snowden.
We can assume, therefore, that they were being stolen before that by less patriotic men and women, bent more on personal gain than service to the country. And would be again. We can only speculate on how many lives he saved by preventing us from believing our information security was solid (it’s not. We know this because those documents were stolen).
Additionally, the government seems to be overstepping bounds I don’t get to vote on, what with them being protected by the constitution. And some that may have changed my vote, were I aware of information that the government took pains (not good pains, but pains) to keep secret.
So, hero.
Sure. Post your real name.
The sad shit is they’re just gonna keep on using this Orwellian surveillance , I wonder how much money all these computer servers, software, third-party contractors, etc. are costing the American taxpayers, I doubt it’s cheap, and I doubt it’s worth it.
Also, it must be assumed that the NSA’s various tricks and exploits to subvert the privacy and security of communications have fallen into criminal hands. This is another reason for redesigning the system to separate the task of bolstering cybersecurity from the task of espionage (with the two under the same roof, the incentive is to sabotage the former in service to the latter) and to dismiss out of hand any proposals for government back doors, front doors, side doors, moon roofs, or other such access points into commercial and personal encryption systems.
:dubious: I wasn’t aware we were at war with Glenn Greenwald.
This is question-begging nonsense.
Positivist nonsensewhat is statutorily permitted is not always goodand still incorrectwhat was and is policy at NSA was not (has not been?) statutorily authorized, and what is statutorily permitted is not always constitutionally permitted.
No, that is not a valid assumption, no more than someone like Smapti can assume that the leaks caused the deaths of many secret agents that we just haven’t heard about yet. That is a testable hypothesis, so an appeal to ignorance (if we don’t know something we have to assume X, therefore X is true) is a poor use of basic reasoning.
Do you have evidence that criminals have benefitted from Snowden’s leaks?
I wasn’t aware Glenn Greenwald was the only person in the world who Snowden made this information available to. In fact, I’m fairly confident that it isn’t, since I doubt you’re Glenn Greenwald, and I’m pretty sure I’m not Glenn Greenwald.
Well, obviously whether you consider it harm turns on the reasonableness of the response. If you put up bars because some random dude walks in your neighborhood, no bueno. But if you put up bars because this guy broke into three other houses on your block, then it’s starting to look more like you can reasonably blame this guy for the trouble. Granted, you’re not going to have a legal claim against him. But I think most of us would find him culpable for the harm nevertheless.
In my view, there are a lot of people in the US for whom countermeasures are just as justified as putting up security bars in the second scenario.