Snowden: Hero or Criminal?

[birdman]

Now, please, don't get me wrong, I'm not of the opinion the intrusion is right, or even justified in 100% of the cases, I'm merely pointing out again and again that the situation, potential inadvertent consequences, and even the rules and laws are more complex than the knee jerk reactions that the press is creating.

My initial admonishment is that the arguments and reactions I keep seeing are reminiscent of non-gun folks making arguments for gun control, without digging into the cause/effect, technology, existing laws, etc.

The reason we have had court rulings on common carrier and metadata (eg civilian courts regarding LUDS) is because those issues have arisen before.  If we need to revisit them, fine, but just as those decisions created these potential effects, one must also consider the effects of changing it, and if possible, understand what the "it" truly is.

Hell, I've seen people quoting news articles, quoting people, quoting people who spoke in classified meetings (no transcript of course) and treating it without context as fact, and neglecting words like "could" as opposed to "do"...where have I seen that before?

[Scout26]

Mr. Williams says it much better then I:

[Scout26]

Actually scout, the common carrier exception is the most apt, compared to the illegal private one.  The reason why, as I've pointed out is you have no ownership of the metadata, as you freely communicate that in public (the nature of how the routing is done), it is owned by the carrier, and thus it isn't "unreasonable".

As I've said, if you want to have true 4th amendment protections on something, don't relinquish ownership of it.  Otherwise, its a civil matter of whether the contract was violated, not a COTUS matter.

The use of the metadata is between my and that company.    Just like it, I sign a contract for any other good and/or service.  The .gov can't just go in and take/make copies of that contract unless they have a warrant.   

Just because I do business with XYZ company does NOT give the .gov the right to go and grab any and all information regarding me and my relationship with that company.

That's the whole "Secure in their papers and effects" thing you keep missing.

 

[birdman]

The use of the metadata is between my and that company.    Just like it, I sign a contract for any other good and/or service.  The .gov can't just go in and take/make copies of that contract unless they have a warrant.   

Just because I do business with XYZ company does NOT give the .gov the right to go and grab any and all information regarding me and my relationship with that company.

That's the whole "Secure in their papers and effects" thing you keep missing.

 

And its the part of the EULA that says they can do whatever they want with "your" data, including giving it to a third party or the govt.

So I DO understand the "secure in their papers" clause, but you don't seem to understand tht the contract you have says the data ISN'T YOURS

[MicroBalrog]

We get it. Why can't we pass laws to ban the government, which we (well, you, I am not a US citizen) ostensibly control, from doing these things? Or do we not control the government?

[Hawkmoon]

Seriously, the part of me that took an oath and held security clearances and whatnot, wants to hammer him into the ground.
But another part of me admires him for what he did, exposing government abuses that were only suspected by a few up until now.

I held a security clearance, too. Mine was Secret, not Top Secret, but it's still a security clearance. I also took an oath.

Was what he did "illegal"? Maybe. But ... isn't the Constitution supposed to be the highest law of the land? So if you are in a position to KNOW that your agency of the .gov, all of which is sworn to protect and defend said Constitution, is in fact violating it on a daily and regular basis ... what, exactly, is the "law"?

My vote goes to "Do what's needed to defend the Constitution."

And now that I've posted that, I'll never be asked to sit on his jury if they extradite him.

[Hawkmoon]

So IF the congressman is correct, it appears they admitted they COULD, not that they did, or did so in any significant capacity.

Keep reading. Two or three paragraphs later our friend from California, Senator Feinstein herself, confirmed that the NSA is eavesdropping without warrants.

[Hawkmoon]

We get it. Why can't we pass laws to ban the government, which we (well, you, I am not a US citizen) ostensibly control, from doing these things? Or do we not control the government?

That was rhetorical, yes?

[roo_ster]

a threat an order of magnitude less lethal to American citizens than than automobile accidents.  And the cherry on top the confection of absurdity is that these unconstitutional and unAmerican actions are directed by default not at orthodox islam, which got lucky in 2001, but against the American citizenry.

really?   http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Bomb-Islamic-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/B001QCX5WG
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100170946/mi6-exposes-the-truth-about-irans-quest-for-nuclear-weapons/

and i am of the opinion we got lucky.  that thats all they did
i know what i could put together if so motivated and think its foolish to pretend someone else couldn't too. especially if they are willing to die too

Count the dead bodies when they have had everything in their favor.  Compare that to automobile fatalities.  Don't need to write a book about it.  Hard, countable numbers; not Jerry Springer class politico-nuclear porn.

I think the smart money bets that THEY got lucky.  This is the same culture that can't rid itself of a few Jews in the world's least defensible terrain to be found this side of a tactician's nightmare.

And domestic mass hoovering of telco & net traffic has zero impact on Iran getting a bomb.

Again, external threats (some real and others imaginary) result in yet more scrutiny of American citizens.  Our gov't is not prosecuting a war on orthodox islam or a war on terror.  By its actions, it considers the American citizenry the greater threat.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm all in favor of what the NSA is doing. After all, their collecting of cell phone metadata prevented the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked



how many is a problem?

[HankB]

. . . Again, external threats (some real and others imaginary) result in yet more scrutiny of American citizens.  Our gov't is not prosecuting a war on orthodox islam or a war on terror.  By its actions, it considers the American citizenry the greater threat.

Hasn't this - and previous Democrat administrations - summarily rejected threat assessments from Federal law enforcement that named radical Islam as a threat, demanding instead that the threat assessments be rewritten so that American militias, Christian, and patriot organizations be identifed as the REAL danger?

[erictank]

http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked



how many is a problem?

One.

[roo_ster]

One.

It is almost as if a principle is at stake.

[MicroBalrog]

http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked



how many is a problem?

Reuters Photo Illustration. An unclassified paper says fewer than 300 phone numbers received close government scruitiny in 2012, out of millions of records gathered by the NSA.

[MicroBalrog]

More intelligence community veterans over here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

More intelligence community veterans over here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

i saw that   very interesting
why do you suppose the kid hada run?  if these folks could stay

[RocketMan]

i saw that   very interesting
why do you suppose the kid hada run?  if these folks could stay

Because none of them leaked to the extent that Snowden did.

[Gewehr98]

How'd that old saying go?

To make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Because none of them leaked to the extent that Snowden did.

You mean a treasonous level?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Marnoot]

What about Snowden showing evidence of the US hacking into Chinese computers? That's no longer defending Americans from an over-obtrusive government. That's treason.

I didn't see any mention of that in any threads, but I could have missed it. Story is all over, including here.

This. Still no discussion of this. Arguments could be made either way on treason charges for his leaks about domestic spying, but the dude definitely needs to face charges for leaking the hacking info to the Chinese. There's no non-treasonous justification for that.

[Parker Dean]

Today's news of Snowden releasing information embarrassing the British government ahead of a G8 meeting they're hosting confirms in my mind that he's in the employ of the Chinese. I gave the timing of the first release the benefit of the doubt but the timing of the second release removes all doubt that there's a political component here.

[Gewehr98]

Just imagine how you'll feel with the 3rd and subsequent releases!

IMHO, he's a dead man walking only because he embarrassed the U.S. Government - the laws he broke are secondary to that.

[roo_ster]

Just imagine how you'll feel with the 3rd and subsequent releases!

IMHO, he's a dead man walking only because he embarrassed the U.S. Government - the laws he broke are secondary to that.

If he were Microsoft, that is the release that would actually work.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

interesting poll
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/cnn-poll-majority-give-snowden-thumbs-down/