Snowden: Hero or Criminal?

[RevDisk]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/EFF-takes-fight-against-secret-law-to-FISC

It's apparently entirely possible that PRISM was essentially declared illegal in 2011. Snowden is claiming that the NSA lied to Congress when the NSA claimed to be following FISC rulings and whatnot. Also, DoJ is fighting release of the court opinion.

THAT would shift the burden quite a bit.


Also, folks, donate to EFF. They do more for your freedom than any other group in the US, for dirt cheap, and with minimal politics.

[birdman]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/EFF-takes-fight-against-secret-law-to-FISC

It's apparently entirely possible that PRISM was essentially declared illegal in 2011. Snowden is claiming that the NSA lied to Congress when the NSA claimed to be following FISC rulings and whatnot. Also, DoJ is fighting release of the court opinion.

Not really

Also, folks, donate to EFF. They do more for your freedom than any other group in the US, for dirt cheap, and with minimal politics.

Yes, (and I know a inch of their board members)

One other question:  What secrets did he actually reveal?  Is it just the existence of these programs like Prism?

Yes, and methods.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. If Congress passed a law saying (for example) that all journalists had to submit their work to a secret review board who would rewrite and censor because national security, then someone "leaking" the classified documents showing that this was happening would be violating a law that is itself invalid and illegal. All enemies foreign and domestic, and all that. Fed.gov can't just do blatantly illegal and evil things then say but national security! when they're revealed. Well, obviously they can and are but it's silly and hopefully no one takes them seriously.

They weren't doing anything illegal

Based on what I've heard up to now, he just blew the whistle on a government program of surveillance targeting over 100,000,000 Americans.

So far as we know right now, he didn't blow the cover of overseas operatives, sell atom bomb blueprints to the Norks, provide missile guidance systems to the Chinese or anything similar. He just notified 100,000,000+ Americans that their government is playing Big Brother, and really is watching them.

If it turns out he did more than that I'll revise my opinion, but right now, I can't fault him.

You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.  It wasn't "targeting", do you have idea what is legal or not in this area?  Do you know what ICD-501 compliance is?  Do you understand the difference between data and metadata, and the pertaining laws?  No?  The don't talk about it.

He did the right thing.
This is an expose of .gov gone wrong, not wikileaks bullshit.
To me abuse of power like that, something that is irrevocably harmful to
The citizens of the US is something that is OK to leak.

You also have no clue.

Seriously people, you al, consistently deride people who make specious arguments about gun control, without knowing anything about guns, yet you all are totally willing to jaw jack about stuff you have no goddamn clue about.

And another thing, you do realize that google, Facebook, apple, AT&T, Verizon, etc regularly obtain and aggregate the information you are talking about, AND actual content, for their own purposes...something the NSA ISN'T ALLOWED TO DO, and do it totally legal, since they HAVE YOUR PERMISSION?
Or did you think those "free" services were charity?

Also, I know people who have gotten in -SERIOUS- legal trouble for doing what you all seem to think is done as standard.  People in the IC know better, you had better be DAMN sure your collection is within the law, because if it blows open, you'll be holding the bag.

In other words, all of you, (with few exceptions) your rantings are a bunch of low-information "Alex jones" kind of crap, as you have proven to have no real knowledge about what actually happens, and have no idea what kind of negative impacts blowing it open can have.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://wapo.st/19ivnfi

a lil gas on flames

[freakazoid]

http://wapo.st/19ivnfi

a lil gas on flames

Only 1,004 people were interviewed? How many American citizens are there now?

They weren't doing anything illegal

How was it not illegal?

[Scout26]

http://wapo.st/19ivnfi

a lil gas on flames

No, that's not slanted at all:

Most Americans back NSA tracking phone records, prioritize probes over privacy

By Jon Cohen, Updated: Monday, June 10, 3:30 PM

A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

Fully 45 percent of all Americans say the government should be able to go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor everyone’s online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, say no such broad-based monitoring should occur.

Last I checked 52% would be "Most", not 45%.  And last I checked, we were a constitutional Federal Republic, not a Democracy (and sure as hell one not run by polls.)

And Birdman, I will respectfully disagree.

I freely decide and contract with those companies.  I don't have to use Facebook, Google, Verizon or my local supermarket.   I do, however have no choice but to deal with the .gov.

Facebook can't send men with guns to kick in my door at 3am, shoot my dog, ransack my house, and take anything they think is "evidence".

Google can't make up specious charges and hold me in jail for as long as want until I can prove my innocence.  (Yes, I know, innocent until proven guilty.  But you are treated as if you are guilty, until, possibly, after the trial.)

The supermarket where I use my special buyer card can't examine my tax returns, call me in for an audit then slap me with fines and penalties (and they sure can't send men with guns to put me in jail.)

Verizon can't go in and look at my health history and deny me coverage or treatment.  (The drug that I need to take every two weeks, Aranesp cannot by administered by my Nephrologist.  He can only administer a similar drug that isn't nearly as effective, Epoetin.  So instead of one stop shopping, I have to go to my Oncologist and get another blood draw before I get the Aranesp shot.  It's a Medicare rule.)

The worst thing those private companies can do is provide me with poor service and possibly prevent me from buying/using their product or service and/or refuse me service in their stores.


The .gov can take my freedom, my money, and my life.  They can turn my world into a living hell.    

[Gewehr98]

I'd have to go with "all of the above", too.

[Hutch]

Birdman, you are quite a scolder.  I have no doubt you have detailed knowledge of the regs and statutes.  It appears as if you know of people who have gotten in trouble by violating those statutes.  It is my assertion that, to the degree those regs and statutes give unwarranted access to metadata, or more likely imho , the actual content of comms, those laws and regs are null and void.  Do the agreement I signed with private companies specifically call out giving their records to .gov w/o a warrant?  I doubt it.

Birdman, I respect your contributions to these forums, and your service to the country.  Your blasé, contemptuous dismissal of our concerns ill becomes you.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its not new.  they could always do a "phone cover"  not listen to calls but see who when and how long.  in  some cases the patterns established could be used for a real warrant for a real tap

likewise a "mail cover"  they check what goes in and out for addresses etc

[birdman]

Birdman, you are quite a scolder.  I have no doubt you have detailed knowledge of the regs and statutes.  It appears as if you know of people who have gotten in trouble by violating those statutes.  It is my assertion that, to the degree those regs and statutes give unwarranted access to metadata, or more likely imho , the actual content of comms, those laws and regs are null and void.  Do the agreement I signed with private companies specifically call out giving their records to .gov w/o a warrant?  I doubt it.

Birdman, I respect your contributions to these forums, and your service to the country.  Your blasé, contemptuous dismissal of our concerns ill becomes you.

Yes, the agreements you sign do allow them to give ALREADY LEGAL TO GIVE metadata to government.

CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.

You say "I doubt it" when it comes to what is allowed or not, meaning you don't know and haven't checked, thereby PROVING MY POINT THAT YOU DONT KNOW AND ARE STILL EXPRESSING AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DEFINE.

Do you know what information the NSA processes?  No.  Do you know what the legal protections are?  No.

Do you know that for domestic communication between two US citizens, any content is protected unless a warrant is issued?  Apparently not.

So in other words, I'm scolding because everyone is outraged over something THAT ISN'T FREAKING HAPPENING, because they don't understand, and are calling this TRAITOR a "hero" for revealing something that they don't understand, when such things actually don't affect YOU but DO affect our ability to do NON DOMESTIC (ie finding bad guys) activities, and thus compromise sources and methods, which are the things you protect most.

So you chastise me for scolding, then go and PROVE my scolding was valid--I scolded the expressing of outrage when you don't understand the actual issue....which you just admitted.

Maybe you don't get it, I am a HUGE libertarian, and if what you describe we're actually occurring to the extent you see, to believe, I would quit my job immediately, and so would, well, about 80-90% of the intelligence community.  You spit on the people that do the job, by implying THEY are compromising their oaths.

Now, IM going to simply shut up, and let you all just rant and rave, and be outraged, since education is worthless when you don't even have the ability to on your own look at both sides of an issue, and would rather knee-jerk your way like a gun control advocate to a conclusion spoon fed to you by the same media you deride out the other side of your mouth.

TL:DR.   F this thread.

[Gewehr98]

In other words, all of you, (with few exceptions) your rantings are a bunch of low-information "Alex jones" kind of crap, as you have proven to have no real knowledge about what actually happens, and have no idea what kind of negative impacts blowing it open can have.

As a retired member of the IC, I resent the above.  I was a staunch defender of the Intelligence Oversight Program during my tenure, and still am, even though I get a monthly check from those very same Appropriated Funds.  

That doesn't mean I'm some political hack, it means I've seen how it works, and thanks to my TS/SCI/CNWDI access I got to sign a non-disclosure agreement binding through several decades after I retired.  They chose that duration because they knew I'd be dead, so I couldn't write a book about it.

Regardless, if there is potential for something to be abused by a government agency, then it will, in fact, be abused. Quite honestly, that's not an "if", that's a "when".  I'd like to think we're all good little boys and girls in the service of the Guv'mint, but even though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night.

[birdman]

As a retired member of the IC, I resent the above.  I was a staunch defender of the Intelligence Oversight Program during my tenure, and still am, even though I get a monthly check from those very same Appropriated Funds.  

That doesn't mean I'm some political hack, it means I've seen how it works, and thanks to my TS/SCI/CNWDI access I got to sign a non-disclosure agreement binding through several decades after I retired.  They chose that duration because they knew I'd be dead, so I couldn't write a book about it.

Regardless, if there is potential for something to be abused by a government agency, then it will, in fact, be abused. Quite honestly, that's not an "if", that's a "when".  I'd like to think we're all good little boys and girls in the service of the Guv'mint, but even though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night.

I said "(with few exceptions)", and you are obviously an exception.  Jesus.

But since you brought it up, abuse on a minority basis is one thing, full blown crap like people think is happening is another.

Additionally, what is the solution if -anything- can be abused?  I guarantee its not "reveal sources and methods to the anyone who cares so I can feel better bout myself". 

[Strings]

>You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.  It wasn't "targeting", do you have idea what is legal or not in this area?  Do you know what ICD-501 compliance is?  Do you understand the difference between data and metadata, and the pertaining laws?  No?  The don't talk about it.<

Which is why I voted "It's all Fistful's fault"

[MicroBalrog]

CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.

I am not sure anyone cares.

If it is legal to acquire (and apparently as some pointed out in the thread there may be court rulings to the contrary), it can, and perhaps should, be made illegal.

[just Warren]

If there are safeguards in place with serious legal consequences for violating innocent folk's privacy then what happened to the people featured in this ABC report?

[Scout26]

I was never a full-fledged member of the IC, but I was an MP Officer, including a stint as Deputy Provost Marshal, and some time working in the Reserves in my battalions S-2 shop.

And I'm sorry, but I think it's wrong that they have grabbed everyone's phone records (Do you really expect me to believe that they only looked at Verizon customers?)    Yes, I get it they weren't listening in.  But one thing I did learn in the 2 shop was that you can learn a lot about the enemy if you know who's talking to whom, when, and for how long.  Like someone said, getting the actual conversation is simply bonus.  

What truly pisses me off about this more than anything else, is that what a tremendous waste of resources.  We have illegals slipping in across the border like it's not there, and the Feds playing catch and release, even after they commit heinous crimes with guns illegally obtained from that very same government.  A spiraling out of control national debt.  Congress trying to take away civil rights, the IRS going after "political enemies", reporters doing their jobs getting secret indictments, and on and on and on.  

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but more and more it appears that the laws only apply to us untermenschen and not to our "betters".

The FISC appears to simply be a rubber stamp court.  If congress was briefed, they sure seemed surprised and wanted to know if that ordered included them, their offices and staffs (BTW, thanks for looking out for We the People, aholes).  But as long as it was only targeted at us untermenschen and not the exalted ones, it's all good then.

I don't care how many we stopped or caught.  The number I heard was one.  One lousy terrorist for all the time and treasure expended on this?  At the cost of my constitutionally guaranteed privacy.   I will say that are "infinitely" better then the TSA (NSA-1, TSA-0).   And yes, I don't care if the law says they can.  They shouldn't and they should know better.    

One thing I learned from working with CID while on active duty, was that they made damn sure that rights were protected and gave the "person of interest" every opportunity to to not do whatever they were about to do wrong.  Quite a bit of time in the undercover operations and investigations was spent spit-balling with JAG officers, MP Officers and other CID Agents to make sure that when we arrested someone that we not only got the right person, but that we had done everything we could to protect their rights and to try to keep them on the right side of the law.

And to quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[zxcvbob]

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but more and more it appears that the laws only apply to us untermenschen and not to our "betters".

Whenever you hear a politician saying "we are a nation of laws, not of men", it's pretty much guaranteed that he's talking about everybody else but excuses his own lawlessness.

[Balog]

It seems pretty disingenuous to be angry at folks for not knowing the exact details of classified programs, and to make spurious equivalences between those who don't trust the fed.gov not to overstep its bounds and gun banners.

Hmmm, let me rephrase this part.

Tyranny doesn't happen because of evil people twirling their villain mustaches and plotting to oppress the citizens. It happens because good and earnest people cross lines for a lot of reasons: just doing their job, the ends justify the means, allegiance to an outside entity over ruling morality etc. no one is saying the NSA are a bunch of Bond villains. But what they are doing is wrong, and obviously we only know a frac toon of what they do. It may be in compliance with the letter of the law (it also may not be, but since their is no effective oversight how can we know?) but it's still wrong and against the Constitution.

[Monkeyleg]

Some of the comments are bordering on personal attacks.

As for Snowden, it's too early to know. I'm just enjoying watching Obama twist in the wind while this unravels.

[Scout26]

How bad is this? 

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

[RocketMan]

Birdman, the point you apparently fail to see is that the government simply has no need to know who 100M Americans are calling on the damn phone.  To hell with whether it's legal for them to gather that information or not.   It is none of their business, period, full stop.
If they need to know that information about specific individuals suspected of wrong doing, then the government can get a damn warrant and straight up monitor the suspect's comms.  They can damn well leave the rest of us alone.

[just Warren]

And here is a story about how State may be interfering in investigations.

While not the NSA it shows that it is possible to break major federal laws and get into no trouble for it so why couldn't the same thing be happening at the NSA?

[RaspberrySurprise]

When your argument comes off as screaming DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO?? ?? you won't win many converts.

Even if it's legal for the NSA to suck up all this data its morally bankrupt and likely unconstitutional.

[Cliffh]

Birdman, the point you apparently fail to see is that the government simply has no need to know who 100M Americans are calling on the damn phone.  To hell with whether it's legal for them to gather that information or not.   It is none of their business, period, full stop.
If they need to know that information about specific individuals suspected of wrong doing, then the government can get a damn warrant and straight up monitor the suspect's comms.  They can damn well leave the rest of us alone.

Nor does it matter if they think they need to know.  

[freakazoid]

How bad is this? 

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

That's really interesting, and scary. Got a little into it then saw that it was pretty long. Marked for further reading.

[Ron]

There are no natural rights or inalienable rights.

There are only evolving social constructs.

Good luck holding on to rights that were discovered using a philosophical/religious world view in a culture that exalts a materialist world view that denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured.