# NSA leaker Edward Snowden, opinions?



## tommychains (Jun 25, 2013)

So by now, you all know the story about him. If not, go google it or watch the news for a few short minutes. I don't care if I sound dumb, but this would make an AWESOME movie.

To sum it up...
Good news, you're not paranoid.

On to the point of the thread, what's your opinions on this whole fiasco? Is he a traitor who put peoples lives in danger? Or is he a patriot who told americans the truth and doing the right thing?

Remember, the mods are watching....and the NSA


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jun 25, 2013)

Both sides are wrong.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 25, 2013)

His leaking might lead to some changes for the better with regards to government surveillance of its own citizens, and in doing so it might hamper counter-terrorism efforts. Unfortunately, we aren't likely to find out how many instances of potential terrorist threats have been neutralized due to PRISM surveillance any time soon, since that sort of information is both still classified _and_ not the sort of thing folks like Manning and Snowden are likely to leak (seriously, when was the last time someone leaked classified info that made the gov't look _good_? I *know* that's not because no such ifnormation exists).

The beneficiality or harm that comes from his leaks aside, he absolutely deserves to be punished for doing it. The vetting process for getting a Top Secret government clearance is not an easy one. It's long, very thourough, and they make absolutely _zero_ bones about it when it comes to the consequences of unauthorized release of classified information. You have to sign document after document after document, take classes about classification, watch videos/presentations about procedures and consequences... 

There really is no way to say you didn't know what would happen, or to claim that you're somehow special due to the nature of the information leaked. The contracts don't say "You shall not release classified information without proper authorization, _unless of course you think it's super important to tell everyone about it_ _because it's eating at your conscience."_ He signed several documents saying he wouldn't do one very specific thing (release classified info), he went ahead and did that thing aynways, so he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions, not hopping around the world trying to find safehaven like a chickenshit.


----------



## XEN (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Truth


It's the NSA. What did the self-proclaimed spy expect to find while working there?
....ing contractor, not properly vetted by the government, getting paid 2-3 times as much as his federal counterparts to work in a position of national trust without being asked once to swear an oath to defend his country. The only reason he'd open his mouth about this shit is because he always intended to. It reads anti-government vendetta from start to finish.
As a federal employee I look at people like him as mercenaries. They are only in it for their own personal gain and not for the protection of the nation.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jun 25, 2013)

_*Comment intercepted by NSA*_


----------



## ferret (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim pretty much sums up my position perfectly.


----------



## MikeyLawless (Jun 25, 2013)

I say he's the man any true american needs to be. " When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. "


----------



## Mexi (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> His leaking might lead to some changes for the better with regards to government surveillance of its own citizens, and in doing so it might hamper counter-terrorism efforts. Unfortunately, we aren't likely to find out how many instances of potential terrorist threats have been neutralized due to PRISM surveillance any time soon, since that sort of information is both still classified _and_ not the sort of thing folks like Manning and Snowden are likely to leak (seriously, when was the last time someone leaked classified info that made the gov't look _good_? I *know* that's not because no such ifnormation exists).



I agree with pretty much all you're saying GMT, but I can't help but think what is more problematic (and I think this speaks to Snowden's rationale) is that people are exceedingly willing to accept any degree of monitoring of our lives because governments say such measures are necessary for national security, etc. Since 9/11, the same logic has been applied to roll back any number of civil liberties and people don't bat an eye. You try to put a tax on extra large drink sizes, people get all "'merica/freedom" on you

NSA Snooping Was Only the Beginning. Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar | Threat Level | Wired.com

This Wired article does a good job of laying out how this NSA spying really is just a small part of a greater effort by Western democracies to monitor, analyze and sift through digital information from *everyone*, NOT just "suspected terrorists" Same goes for the U.K-based GCHQ

BBC News - GCHQ tapped fibre-optic cables for data, says newspaper

MI5 feared GCHQ went 'too far' over phone and internet monitoring | UK news | The Observer

Many of these intelligence agencies (that most people didn't even know existed) operate in fairly nebulous areas of legality and seem to liberally interpret laws as they see fit. Because the public (and most elected officials) are unaware of these programs, there is no dialogue on the efficacy of the current strategies, nor any room for dissent from politicians that *do* know about it.

Historically speaking, all whistleblowers are guilty of being criminals, insofar as they've broken their legal contracts, stolen sensitive information etc. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of that, but what happens when the our culture begins to demonize _all_ types of whistleblowers? It's okay to speak out against big tobacco or the oil industry because we can _see_ the relationship between human health and these products. That relationship is far less pronounced when it comes to blowing the lid on massive monitoring programs that the public is completely unaware of.

The fact that many of us have lived with these types of draconian measures since 9/11 means that we've already become accustomed to them and learned to accept them as an inevitability of living in this "new age" of terror. it's quite sad what a few box cutters and pressure cookers can do to the ethos of an entire nation that prided itself on individual freedom and liberty from government intervention. The visceral nature of terrorism leaves lingering images so horrifying that we'd do anything to avoid in the future (even the slow erosion of the very freedoms we value so much)

In this day and age, there is a fine line between patriot and traitor and men like Snowden (while guilty of many crimes) are one of the few people that seem to put more stock in the greater principle of what is wrong with governments then saving his own hide. I also take issue with the "chickenshit" label, because based on the information he obtained, he genuinely feels that he would be politically persecuted for whistleblowing, giving few options other than political asylum. In fact, it would be illegal (according to international law) to extradite him while a country (such as Ecuador) considers him for political asylum. And really, his logic for wanting asylum can't be any more vague or open to interpretation as the policies he was trying to expose in the first place.

bottom line, I'm neither pro or anti-Snowden, but I'm just concerned with the current trajectory of the political culture of domestic intelligence and monitoring.

/end rant


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jun 25, 2013)

My problem with the whole thing is you don't even have to say anything threatening or anti government. Just publicaly disagreeing can get you into some form of trouble. There's really no need to spy on your own people when less then .01% are terrorists. (Excuse me if my % is wrong, but I have never once felt threatened/unsafe in this country)

I don't feel that there is justification for it all. Hell I'm more scared of the government then the 'terrorists'

 /rant


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 25, 2013)

Mexi said:


> I also take issue with the "chickenshit" label, because based on the information he obtained, he genuinely feels that he would be politically persecuted for whistleblowing




He feels he would be, because he _should_ be, and he knows it. He knew what the consequences for doing it were when he did it. He made his bed, he can lie in it. African Americans didn't stand up to protest segregation and discrimination only to turn around and hide from police for fear of being arrested for their convictions. If anything, that cheapens it. He's willing to stand up for his beliefs, until he might get in trouble for them. Then it's off to hide somewhere. It's cowardly. Standing up for your beliefs doesn't seem quite so brave if you don't expect to actually face any negative consequences.

Don't take all that as any tacit approval of the government surveillance on my part. I've worked in the intel field before, and in my neck of the woods collecting on US citizens was a gigantic no-no. It wasn't "Don't do it, wink wink nudge nudge, amirite hehe." It was "Don't do it, or it's your ass. Full stop." Frankly, that's the way I like it, and how it should be in most cases. 

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about domestic collection as part of anti-terrorism measures. I'll admit I have ZERO qualms with collecting on foreign targets, whether or not we're allies with the country. Hell, when we're allies, we can usually just say "hey, can you look in to this dude/group for us?," but I wouldn't be too broken up about it if I found out that sometimes we take matters into our own hands. If in the process of collecting on foreign targets we find out about a domestic target with connections to terrorism, then I think it's good to have a system in place where permission can be obtained to collect on that target and any other relevant targets related to it. Wholesale collection on domestic citizens, though, I'm not entirely comfortable with. It's genuinely something I'm still turning over in my head.

Tangent: And seriously, nobody HAS to take a job with a TS clearance. If a person thinks that there's a chance they might come across something on the job that they won't be able to keep to themselves, they can put the damned pen down before signing the contract and say "You know what, I can't make this commitment," and go get another job. The successful operation of any intelligence community hinges on the reliability of the people working within it ("loose lips sink ships,' and whatnot), and I genuinely think it's better off without people like Snowden. There _have_ to be better ways to deal with a perceived injustice than just stealing classified information and running off to the media with it. If there are no official channels for dealing with such problems, then that's a severe oversight that should be remedied ASAP.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 25, 2013)

How I imagine it, with the info given out so far:

Snowden: Hey, the US is spying on people!
Russia/China: Um, duh?
Snowden: It's called Prism.
Russia/China, Ok, the duh now has a proper noun.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Jun 25, 2013)

In the wake of 9/11, we gave any right to privacy away with the passage of the Patriot Act. If you honestly didn't think that a program like this was going on, then you're a fool. Our government has been slowly creeping to this point for a decade now and it's completely unsurprising that it has been happening. 

But it's okay, because it saves us all from the feared buzzword of "terrorism." 

Regarding Snowden and his actions: there is no black and white answer. He was trusted with TS clearance and he broke that trust. But at the same time I'm glad we have official knowledge of this program so people can know the depth at which they are being watched.


----------



## Mexi (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Standing up for your beliefs doesn't seem quite so brave if you don't expect to actually face any negative consequences.



His life as he knows it is pretty much over. Any semblance of normality he enjoyed as an employee of the NSA, and virtually any other aspect of life is now over. At best, he'll get asylum in some dirt country, at worst he'll spend the rest of his life in a hole somewhere. I think he is fully aware of the "negative consequences" of his decision, regardless of where he ends up at this point. I understand why someone wouldn't want to be subject to a system of laws they believe are unjust, in fact, that's how laws sometimes change. It is probably not the typical use of the asylum system, but one would be pretty naive to assume there would not be grounds for political persecution as laid out by the UN charter (especially if Ecuador is considering it)



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Wholesale collection on domestic citizens, though, *I'm not entirely comfortable with*. It's genuinely something I'm still turning over in my head.



I'm sure this is an understatement. The problem I see is that much of this intelligence-gathering is, by and large, irrelevant to actual counter-terrorism initiatives (as demonstrated by most of the leaked documentation). Add to the fact that the private sector has enormous economic incentive to "legitimately" help the government monitor all citizen activities, without any real oversight whatsoever. Private sector involvement also commodifies information, creating a whole new intelligence-gathering industry, lacking in regulation and an ethical framework to collect information on average people. If ex GCHQ and NSA insiders are speaking about the questionable tactics used in the past few years by these agencies, then I think it's prudent to at least question the shoddy logic employed by the gov't that claim these sorts of policies are the *ONLY *way to address terrorism. 



Grand Moff Tim said:


> There _have_ to be better ways to deal with a perceived injustice than just stealing classified information and running off to the media with it. If there are no official channels for dealing with such problems, then that's a severe oversight that should be remedied ASAP.



That's the thing, without actual evidence to support seemingly ludicrous claims about a widespread, domestic surveillance operation on Americans, who would believe him? Stealing info and going to the media is *THE* quintessential way to expose injustices to the masses (media being the primary medium for the average person to be apprised of current events) There have been whistleblower protection laws in place that helps these people, who essentially ruin their lives and careers because of something they felt needed to be told to the public. However, because of the obvious national security and political undertones of this event, he's labeled a traitor will probably spend the rest of his life in a hole somewhere, or at least deprived of the liberty he enjoyed up until this whole fiasco.

That kind of conviction is hard to establish when you're signing a work contract. I doubt these are decisions that are taken lightly by people like Snowden or Bradley Manning. They jeopardize their lives for a belief, or cause that they truly believe is on positive side of some kind of "moral high-ground". Say what you will about how misguided they were,or continue to be, but people like this invariably do more to bring awareness about injustices while politicians seem to try their damnedest to sweep glaring problems under the rug. If there is a better way to let the world know of these massive programs, I'd be all for it too 

It's important not to oversimplify the debate into a simple right and wrong, as there is so much going on here it could make anyone's head spin.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> He feels he would be, because he _should_ be, and he knows it. He knew what the consequences for doing it were when he did it. He made his bed, he can lie in it. African Americans didn't stand up to protest segregation and discrimination only to turn around and hide from police for fear of being arrested for their convictions. If anything, that cheapens it. He's willing to stand up for his beliefs, until he might get in trouble for them. Then it's off to hide somewhere. It's cowardly. Standing up for your beliefs doesn't seem quite so brave if you don't expect to actually face any negative consequences.



I've gotta disagree with you here, Tim. The cost of blood spilled while "fighting the good fight" might seem noble, but every person who dies or gets thrown into a hole in the ground for defending a principal will never get to see the fruits of their labor. I applaud people who have the conviction to face the lifetime of consequences that fighting a corrupt system can often bring to bear, but at the same time, facing persecution for doing the right thing _should_ be wholly unnecessary. Not everyone who believes in a cause should have to throw themselves blindly into martyrdom to prove their point.

The obvious caveat is whether or not what he did _was_ the right thing to do. In some ways, only history can be the real judge of that, and as the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, you yourself said you weren't comfortable with the wholesale collection of data on domestic citizens. You want to prosecute him for breach of trust, yet if an organization is actively betraying the trust of its citizens, what makes that organization worthy of the silence it demands from those very citizens?


----------



## MikeyLawless (Jun 25, 2013)

Xaios said:


> I've gotta disagree with you here, Tim. The cost of blood spilled while "fighting the good fight" might seem noble, but every person who dies or gets thrown into a hole in the ground for defending a principal will never get to see the fruits of their labor. I applaud people who have the conviction to face the lifetime of consequences that fighting a corrupt system can often bring to bear, but at the same time, facing persecution for doing the right thing _should_ be wholly unnecessary. Not everyone who believes in a cause should have to throw themselves blindly into martyrdom to prove their point.
> 
> The obvious caveat is whether or not what he did _was_ the right thing to do. In some ways, only history can be the real judge of that, and as the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, you yourself said you weren't comfortable with the wholesale collection of data on domestic citizens. You want to prosecute him for breach of trust, yet if an organization is actively betraying the trust of its citizens, what makes that organization worthy of the silence it demands from those very citizens?



Dat last paragraph +1. Our government has betrayed us, why should we feel bad or guilty for betraying them? 

War on terror is a joke anyways. You can defeat an enemy that universally exists everywhere.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Jun 25, 2013)

The war on terror is a really bad way of going about it. You can't declare war on something you can't beat. The snake will just keep regenerating heads, a new extremist to take the place of the previous person. A contasnt manhunt.

Personally, I like what Edward Snowden did. I want to know what the government is up to. Now I am an independent politcally, but I tend to favor the left vastly over the right. 

If you read on the BBC of WHY he did it 
: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things&#8230; I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded."

"
But he added: "The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture,' and can be stripped out at any time."
Mr Snowden said he had decided to speak out after observing "a continuing litany of lies" from senior officials to Congress.
"The US government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason," Mr Snowden wrote. 
Two influential members of the US Congress last week accused him of betraying his country, and former Vice-President Dick Cheney on Sunday denounced Mr Snowden as a "traitor".
Of claims that he was working for Chinese intelligence, Mr Snowden said: "This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public." 
He added that he had no intention of going back to the US or turning himself in.
"The US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me," he said."


Also, at one point he talked about corruption in Congress (surprise surprise). In my eyes he just the start of what could be a good change for this country. Don't like what the government is doing such as the Patriot Act? Speak up about it.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 25, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> His leaking might lead to some changes for the better with regards to government surveillance of its own citizens, and in doing so it might hamper counter-terrorism efforts.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> *The contracts don't say "You shall not release classified information without proper authorization, unless of course you think it's super important to tell everyone about it because it's eating at your conscience."* *He signed several documents saying he wouldn't do one very specific thing (release classified info), he went ahead and did that thing aynways, so he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions, not hopping around the world trying to find safehaven like a chickenshit.*



Yeah, pretty much that. On the one hand, I am not a fan of the NSA/Patriot Act surveillance of American citizens. On the other, if you want to fight this either fight to have the laws change, or if you are going to protest it be aware of the consequences and HOW you are going to protest. There had to have been somebody he could have aired his grievances to without committing espionage. Like, for example, _not China!_ It also kills the illusion that you are a "hero" for freedom when you're globetrotting looking for some place that will grant you immunity, especially when Ecuador is at the top of your list. Y'know, the country that "Recently Passed Law Further Restricting Press Freedom."
Ecuador Recently Passed Law Further Restricting Press Freedom

But he's doing this to protect our freedoms. Speaking of which, he put an especially large amount of responsibility on himself to somehow judge what was too far and how to respond for our sake. The problem is, he is not especially qualified to make that decision. Plus, the whole signing nondisclosure contracts promising not to do this, then him running away and presumably selling his story. All without working to fight or change the laws through the democratic (well, representative) channels available to us in the United States! No, it would not have made as big a splash, however there are ways you can work to change things other than this.

-Cheers


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 25, 2013)

urklvt said:


> The only reason he'd open his mouth about this shit is because he always intended to. It reads anti-government vendetta from start to finish.



Nailed it.

Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence - CNN.com


----------



## mcd (Jun 26, 2013)

urklvt said:


> As a federal employee I look at people like him as mercenaries. They are only in it for their own personal gain and not for the protection of the nation.



Agree mostly, I am a contract employee for the fed. I am also prior service, and did have to sign papers stating what I do for the government is such and such classification. I am sure he signed the same paperwork or something similar. 

While I feel the NSA is very very wrong in their invasion of privacy, I also feel Snowden is just as wrong for breaking his contract. Their are legal ways to handle this, and he should have gone through the proper channels.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 26, 2013)

What exactly are the proper channels? (not being sarcastic) If no one believes you or thinks you are being ridiculous or exaggerative you cannot garner support for a movement and if we are completely unaware in general there is nothing to rally behind. The supreme Court gets a ton of cases that go completely ignored because of the sheer number of cases that pass their desk. Neither party seems to be against these policies even if they say they are too so voting won't exactly solve this problem either. There is an 'above the law' attitude within our government that kind of makes it difficult to go about any of this in the 'proper' way (if there is such a thing).

Not to drag this down that road, but the same logic of doing things the 'proper' way could have been said/applied to the civil rights movement and if we had gone down that road we probably wouldn't have progressed as far as we have. Albeit there obviously large differences, but it makes my point either way.

Voting isn't going to do shit because Obama is just as bad as Bush and they are in opposing parties. In fact Obama has been worse in this regard. His administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other. As much as I prefer the Dems over the Repubs they have been just as bad if not worse than Bush involving war and intelligence (NSA, drone strikes, false promises about war,terrorism and prisoner rights, etc.).


----------



## mcd (Jun 26, 2013)

flint757 said:


> What exactly are the proper channels?



The proper way to do what he did is:
Step One: Notify Superior of illegal activity
Step Two: Document in Writing the notification.
Step Three: If nothing happens, secure legal counsel and make them aware of illegal activity.
Step Four: Surrender your clearance and pursue civil case against NSA.

once step 3 is hit though you can rest assured it would become public knowledge.

Pretty much the proper way is to ensure his ass isn't put in the sling, and helps you're own credibility.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 26, 2013)

I'm gonna try not to drag this too far away from a really great conversation on a really important topic, but I feel that I have to throw this into the mix.

A lot of the people here, regardless of whether they support Snowden or not, have said that it's fine to spy on 'foreigners' but not American nationals. I saw this sort of thinking a bit in the debate on drones, as it's seen that 'foreigners' are more likely to be terrorists, so it's fine to target them with both cameras and missiles. But as we've seen in the drone debate, it's not that much of a leap from targeting foreigners to domestics. Legally and morally, you're still targeting people, and you're using universal technology to do it, so why not just target everyone? As a non-American, am I more worthy of suspicion?

And we've been talking about the legality of the situation here in terms of Snowden signing a contract, breaking it, and having to face the legal ramifications. You break a law, you pay for it. So, when Seal Team Six invaded Pakistan to murder a complete dipshit of a human being that the planet is better off without, and killed a few others in the process, what were the ramifications for outright spitting in the face of an international alliance? I realise this is a Straw Man argument, but if we're saying that the end doesn't justify the means (Snowden being right doesn't mean he shouldn't pay for a crime), how come the more powerful don't ever suffer? Hell, didn't Putin just admit to stealing a Super Bowl ring? He technically broke a law, so surely he'll face the ramifications just as Snowden should! 

Finally, "swearing an oath to defend your country" is a tricky business when you're forced to choose between defending its government and its citizens. What are you defending? How are you defending it? Hell, this is a tricky conversation even outside of this particular topic. My partner has dual Australian / USA citizenship. Who would she swear her oaths to? Her nephew is five years old, and holds British / American / Australian citizenship. If he were to apply for a job in defence when he's an adult, how can he swear allegiance to one country under those circumstances? Does this oath ask one to defend against theats foreign and domestic? If domestic, does this threat include the government? Personally, I feel pretty ....ing threatened by the USA's policies on drones and spying, and I don't even live there! In this sense, is Snowden fulfilling an agreement to defend American citizens from a (governmental) threat? 

This is murky stuff guys. I feel like I'm on Snowden's side at the moment, but if anybody can convince me that the legal framework that allows Snowden to be persecuted / prosecuted is justifiable, it's you classy bastards. Please. Win me over and convince me that the governments of the world aren't out to get us.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 26, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> And we've been talking about the legality of the situation here in terms of Snowden signing a contract, breaking it, and having to face the legal ramifications. You break a law, you pay for it. So, when Seal Team Six invaded Pakistan to murder a complete dipshit of a human being that the planet is better off without, and killed a few others in the process, what were the ramifications for outright spitting in the face of an international alliance? I realise this is a Straw Man argument, but if we're saying that the end doesn't justify the means (Snowden being right doesn't mean he shouldn't pay for a crime), how come the more powerful don't ever suffer? Hell, didn't Putin just admit to stealing a Super Bowl ring? He technically broke a law, so surely he'll face the ramifications just as Snowden should!
> 
> Finally, "swearing an oath to defend your country" is a tricky business when you're forced to choose between defending its government and its citizens. What are you defending? How are you defending it? Hell, this is a tricky conversation even outside of this particular topic. My partner has dual Australian / USA citizenship. Who would she swear her oaths to? Her nephew is five years old, and holds British / American / Australian citizenship. If he were to apply for a job in defence when he's an adult, how can he swear allegiance to one country under those circumstances? Does this oath ask one to defend against theats foreign and domestic? If domestic, does this threat include the government? Personally, I feel pretty ....ing threatened by the USA's policies on drones and spying, and I don't even live there! In this sense, is Snowden fulfilling an agreement to defend American citizens from a (governmental) threat?



This is where I'm at, minus the partner and nephew bit. I can't answer these questions, and I'm not able to find anything online that does. In fact, I find more questions to ask. 

All of a sudden we have secret courts that decide things secretly with some sort of implied integrity and nobody has a problem with that? As a card-carrying Democrat, I've been in favor of big government since I learned how to think critically, and even so I'm far from content with how things are apparently working.

What about the programs Snowden wasn't working on? How many more intrusions or deceptions do we live underneath? What say do American citizens have in determining just what we're ready to give up or live in to protect ourselves? And more importantly, is the government automatically right? 

To those of you upset about the contract breaking, I'm confused. Breaking laws has been a staple of American protest and often a catalyst for positive cultural and legal change. Is breaking an oath automatically grounds for being wrong? Or can the context be enlarged to include situations where it's right? 

What I feel is a total lack of control. It doesn't just stem from this topic, it's from life in the US in 2013. I feel like my grasp on things is pretty clear, but all I see are these colossal beasts slouching where they will with no regard to the protests of anyone. There's no way to stop them, there's largely no will to stop them, and any half-assed attempts (remember OWS?) are met with ridicule, are ineffectual, and forgotten about in favor of the next ephemeral concern. Meanwhile those titans keep lumbering about, grinding gears and pulling levers while we literally are being dismissed.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 26, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> A lot of the people here, regardless of whether they support Snowden or not, have said that it's fine to spy on 'foreigners' but not American nationals. I saw this sort of thinking a bit in the debate on drones, as it's seen that 'foreigners' are more likely to be terrorists, so it's fine to target them with both cameras and missiles. But as we've seen in the drone debate, it's not that much of a leap from targeting foreigners to domestics. Legally and morally, you're still targeting people, and you're using universal technology to do it, so why not just target everyone? As a non-American, am I more worthy of suspicion?



I can't speak for everyone here, but the reason I'm okay with collecting info on foreign targets but not domestic ones isn't because they're "more likely to be terrorists" (though let's face it, some nations produce more than others). For me, it's more of an "I'm a tax-paying citizen, I expect protection and privacy from my government." If you aren't a citizen of the US and you don't pay taxes to its government, you can't have the same expectation of privacy with regards to surveillance. Of course, your governments are free to put countersurveillance measures in place, or make pacts/agreements with different governments regarding the conditions under which they're okay with collecting information on their citizens. 

I realize that isn't a very comforting answer and might make me seem morally suspect to some of you, but it is what it is. I just don't have any problems with our government collecting on (or "spying on," and the negative connotations that automatically carries for many) non-Americans. For what it's worth, I also have no issues with other countries trying to collect on American citizens, and let's not pretend that nobody does. I think part of the government's job is to put measures in place to make sure that doesn't happen (either diplomatically or with countersurveillance). Turnabout is fair play, and what not.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 26, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> To those of you upset about the contract breaking, I'm confused. Breaking laws has been a staple of American protest and often a catalyst for positive cultural and legal change. Is breaking an oath automatically grounds for being wrong? Or can the context be enlarged to include situations where it's right?



You're right, lawbreaking has often been a catalyst for social change. In those cases though, generally the law is broken, people are punished for breaking those laws, then the public goes "hey wait a minute, that's a shitty thing to punish someone for," and the laws change. It could be that the arrest and punishment of people like Manning and Snowden are what it will take to lead to a review of the current processes and procedures, and the addition of more (and/or more effective) legal channels a "whistleblower" can take. 

However, I just don't think that when it comes to issues of national security (and I'm not saying that as a terrorism bugaboo catchphrase, it's just to point out that government _security_ clearances are part and parcel to national security), people shouldn't be able to just decide on their own that the media gets to know about something. It'd certainly be unfortunate if there are no systems in place now where a person can do that (though someone above hinted that there are), and I do hope situations like this one lead to change in that arena.


EDITED for terribly rushed typos.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jun 26, 2013)

I'm just going to leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PxEuYUUMJI


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 26, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> [P]eople shouldn't be able to just decide on their own that the media gets to know about something.



I chose this line because it represents my greatest challenge in understanding this issue. 

If I approach that statement rationally, and in the context you provided, the practical merits are obvious. Exposing secrets related to national security, even if they were as 'evil' as outright assassinations, makes the country that much less well-defended. Now prospective terrorists know to use snail mail or whatever means to communicate plans. 

My issue is that I can't just agree that the above statement is 'true' without cognitive dissonance rattling around in my brain. There was no other way to challenge this program but to announce it publicly. Its legality, much like drone strikes, was argued both for and against in a secret court. Any test of that would by definition have to go to another secret court, since it couldn't be unveiled without breaching both its secrecy and national security. 

I also, and maybe more importantly, can't accept that security at all costs is ideal, especially when Americans have no say in it. I can either install deadlocks in my door, or I can just have one of those hippie bead deals, or I can create a damn fortress with a moat and a drawbridge, but ultimately the level of intrusion into my activities is decided by me. To what extent can the government go to protect me? PRISM is only one program at one alphabet agency. If there's one, then there must be more, and to what level are they intrusive? And why don't the voices of those ostensibly being served by these programs or actions have any say? These are top-level decisions with legal ramifications that are sponsored and run by bureaucratic organizations with little oversight on the Capitol and non-elected decision-makers. Is this a process I should trust? Could the government at large be a bit overzealous in its efforts? Or should I take the stance that it knows best? 

As you can tell, I'm so, so lost in all of this.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 26, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If you aren't a citizen of the US and you don't pay taxes to its government, you can't have the same expectation of privacy with regards to surveillance. Of course, your governments are free to put countersurveillance measures in place, or make pacts/agreements with different governments regarding the conditions under which they're okay with collecting information on their citizens.
> 
> I think part of the government's job is to put measures in place to make sure that doesn't happen (either diplomatically or with countersurveillance). Turnabout is fair play, and what not.



I'm using selective quoting here, so please don't think that the above are the only points I got out of your post. I completely understand where you're coming from, as it's an argument that many Australians have made about Indonesia (citizens of Australia want surveillance on and protection from a country that has produced terrorists that have killed Australians).

But fair play and equality don't exist in the way you suggested. The US has the strongest military in the world, and most of the companies that produce and supply the technology required for surveillance and warfare to the entire rest of the planet. So in effect it's still about power. In the same way that Australia has military, political and economic leverage over Indonesia, the US has military, political and economic leverage over almost the whole planet. It's not exactly fair play. This is essentially the US government's stance on surveillance. There is a bipartisan understanding that they have the technology and the power, and so they will use it, and they will choose the targets. Snowden has resorted to social and political guerilla tactics because they are his only weapon against a more powerful opponent. One could argue that this makes him a terrorist, as this is the same mentality that terrorist groups use to justify their tactics against militarily superior targets, but Snowden's only target is a political system that supports the widespread targeting of non-military targets.

I just used the word 'target' too many times in a row. Where's my ....ing thesaurus?  Oh wait, this is a porno.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 26, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> There was no other way to challenge this program but to announce it publicly. Its legality, much like drone strikes, was argued both for and against in a secret court. Any test of that would by definition have to go to another secret court, since it couldn't be unveiled without breaching both its secrecy and national security.



Then one thing that's being exposed by all of this is a severe oversight in the way the system works with regards to reporting perceived injustices and resolving issues like this without just going to the press. He may not have thought he had any other option (and I'm not convinced he didn't), but that still doesn't make running off to the press okay. 

The intelligence community is a community that is 100% better off without members who feel that they can choose to divulge classified information of _any_ sort, so what he did is not okay. This whole situation hasn't revealed a situation where it's okay to take these issues straight to the press, it's brought to light a lack of options (whether perceived or real) that don't involve going directly to the media. 

As I said, "people *shouldn't* be able to just decide on their own that the media gets to know about something." He might feel that in his position it was all he _could_ do, which may or may not be true, but that doesn't change that "ideally," he _shouldn't_ be able to. Let's implement a system where people can report these infractions *legally*, if no such system exists, as opposed to changing the system to one where anybody can take whatever they want to the press, as long as they think it's important enough. That nearly defeats the purpose of security clearances entirely.



The Reverend said:


> I also, and maybe more importantly, can't accept that security at all costs is ideal, especially when Americans have no say in it.



On that much we can certainly agree, and I hope nobody has interpreted anything I've said so far as suggesting I think otherwise.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 26, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> But fair play and equality don't exist in the way you suggested. The US has the strongest military in the world, and most of the companies that produce and supply the technology required for surveillance and warfare to the entire rest of the planet. So in effect it's still about power. In the same way that Australia has military, political and economic leverage over Indonesia, the US has military, political and economic leverage over almost the whole planet. It's not exactly fair play.



Forgive me if it isn't what you were implying, but why should having an advantage keep us from doing it? The US didn't just IDDQD our way into having better technology than other countries. We earned the capabilities. 

When I say "turnabout is fair play" I just mean in this case that I'm not going to espouse the US collecting on other countries (I feel more and more ex-intel every time I say "collecting" instead of "spying" ) and then bristle at the idea or suggestion that other countries could then say the same thing about collecting on us. We collect on them, they can collect on us, fair's fair. We might be better at it, but... well, boo-hoo. That's not our problem. They can improve their capabilities until we're on more equal footing, or they can deal with it. 

Or we can stop collecting on anybody with worse capabilities than ours. Fat chance, with the absolute most capital of capital Fs.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 26, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Forgive me if it isn't what you were implying, but why should having an advantage keep us from doing it? The US didn't just IDDQD our way into having better technology than other countries. We earned the capabilities.



As a long time Doom player, let me just say that I've long wanted to IDSPISPOPD my way into all kinds of things. It's best that I can't . It's also a well made point. I appreciate that the US innovated and funded its way into this position, but just as it's natural for a US citizen to feel nervous about the potential for terrorism from people in foreign countries, it's also natural for people in foreign countries to feel nervous about the potential for having their rights removed by a government that they don't have a chance to choose, from a country they don't live in, that promises its own citizens the same rights. It's hypocritical, but it's also politics, so hypocrisy comes with the territory.



> When I say "turnabout is fair play" I just mean in this case that I'm not going to espouse the US collecting on other countries (I feel more and more ex-intel every time I say "collecting" instead of "spying" ) and then bristle at the idea or suggestion that other countries could then say the same thing about collecting on us. We collect on them, they can collect on us, fair's fair. We might be better at it, but... well, boo-hoo. That's not our problem. They can improve their capabilities until we're on more equal footing, or they can deal with it.
> 
> Or we can stop collecting on anybody with worse capabilities than ours. Fat chance, with the absolute most capital of capital Fs.


The difficulty with improving capabilities is that in modern times you need to be enabled by others. Martha Nussbaum has written some awesome stuff on this in regards to human rights, but I think it kind of applies to the military industial complex. To the best of my knowledge, Israel has the second best airforce in the world. How? The US supplies it. When countries team up to pool resources in attempting to achieve greater capabilities they are labelled as things like 'Coalitions of the Willing' when allied with the US and 'Axis of Evil' when not. When China and Russia increase their militaries nobody congratulates them on their new found capabilities, they predict war. When Russia and China are found to have huge operations attempting to hack US governmental sites and computers, there's no assumption that they're just trying to 'level the playing field', it is assumed that their intents are nefarious.

I think Snowden's decision to act in the way he did is a reflection of how he assumes the US government would treat him if he used official channels. Consecutive Republican / Democrat governments have shown that they're happy to lock people up in a place like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib without charge and hope that nobody finds out. Snowden's no hero, but it's hard to blame him for his decision not to trust government agencies.

EDIT: a couple of spelling errors fixed. I also see now that my comparison between human rights and military stuff is shit, but I'll leave it there coz it would be cheeky for me to remove it out of embarassment.


----------



## TelegramSam (Jun 28, 2013)

mcd said:


> Agree mostly, I am a contract employee for the fed. I am also prior service, and did have to sign papers stating what I do for the government is such and such classification. I am sure he signed the same paperwork or something similar.
> 
> While I feel the NSA is very very wrong in their invasion of privacy, I also feel Snowden is just as wrong for breaking his contract. Their are legal ways to handle this, and he should have gone through the proper channels.



Call me cynical, but I doubt going through the proper channels would bear fruit. Unless he knew other people who were willing to help him handle this legally, I really don't think that what ever he did would have made the blindest bit of difference. I mean, you can't take on an agency which specialises in (among other things, apparently) sweeping things under a rug fairly.


----------



## Overtone (Jul 1, 2013)

When my gf and me talked about this, I found that the conversation boiled down largely to the ethics of committing a crime and jeopardizing national security because it seems that all 3 branches of government are not able to efficiently or competently regulate gov't agencies to ensure civil liberties (4th amendment) and national defense simultaneously. Her view was similar to the pro-gun control argument... the bill of rights is "outdated." My retort was that if it is then it should be amended first rather than blatantly disregarded. But overall my conclusion was that it's just another sad byproduct of apathy among the people... the people as a whole SHOULD be more concerned about a lot of things (civil liberties, spending, loopholes, insider trading in congress, etc.) but they aren't. In this situation it seems like now that it got "taken to the streets" the consensus is "Who gives a shit, I thought we already knew that was happening?" So democracy at work in a sense... although I still have the opinion that the 3 branches have a lot of reforms to make to how they operate before they are doing the best job possible of representing the American human being population.

I think it's better in a democracy to have people challenge the system like this once in a while, even if the outcome only makes society worse off because the consensus seems to be to welcome intrusions into our lives.


----------



## vilk (Jul 2, 2013)

So, a lot of text in this thread. I did read at least half of it, but all the while I'm thinking

es·pi·o·nage [es-pee-uh-nahzh, -nij, es-pee-uh-nahzh] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or practice of spying.
2.
the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations.
3.
the use of spies by a corporation or the like to acquire the plans, technical knowledge, etc., of a competitor: industrial espionage.



So, if he is spying on behalf us U.S. Citizens, and gave the information to the public, does that like imply that we are the enemy of the government? I mean, the dudeman was spying for _me_, in a sense. He didn't sell the secrets to the USSR or some crap, he just said what was going on out loud, and he was obviously acting in the interest of the freedoms of US citizens, or at least felt that he was.

I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of whether it was good or bad, this guy is not a spy and he didn't commit espionage, because if he did it would mean that somehow the public as a whole is an organization that is working to take down the United States government. I really don't think that this is a good kind of mentality for anyone to have. Why are U.S. citizens being pitted against our own government?


Unrelated, but as someone mentioned earlier, which I thought was interesting because I immediately agreed in my mind, I am far more afraid of the United States government than I am of terrorists.


----------



## Choop (Jul 2, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Let's implement a system where people can report these infractions *legally*, if no such system exists, as opposed to changing the system to one where anybody can take whatever they want to the press, as long as they think it's important enough. That nearly defeats the purpose of security clearances entirely.



Would the government allow that information that Snowden leaked to be disclosed in its entirety even if there was a "legal" process for it to be presented?  This may be the ol' cynicism talkin' here, but I highly doubt it, especially with something that could allegedly threaten national security.

TBH I'm okay with what he did. The illegal nature of how he let the information become public is kind of dwarfed by the extent of which the United States is illegally collecting personal data and spying (however unsurprising those activities may be).


----------



## hairychris (Jul 2, 2013)

It's ironic that he's requesting refugee status from a country that has *just* signed draconian anti-gay and pro-religious acts into law.

Anyway, anyone who has any idea about *how* technology infrastructure works could not be surprised about what the NSA/GCHQ/etc are doing. There are a lot of technologically illiterate folks out there.

The interesting aspect, IMO, involves the *who* question. There are hundreds of thousand of employees of private companies who have access to "private" data. The US/UK/other intelligence agencies are, in effect, spying on each other's populations and passing that information across to get past laws that restrict spying on domestic users (but getting intel for free from a mate gets round this).

Snowden should definitely have arranged where he was when he leaked this better. And, tbh, if he's taken any legal advice from Wikileaks he's crazy. Much as I get some of what they're doing, they are totally deluded in other aspects.


----------



## hairychris (Jul 2, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Then one thing that's being exposed by all of this is a severe oversight in the way the system works with regards to reporting perceived injustices and resolving issues like this without just going to the press. He may not have thought he had any other option (and I'm not convinced he didn't), but that still doesn't make running off to the press okay.
> 
> The intelligence community is a community that is 100% better off without members who feel that they can choose to divulge classified information of _any_ sort, so what he did is not okay. This whole situation hasn't revealed a situation where it's okay to take these issues straight to the press, it's brought to light a lack of options (whether perceived or real) that don't involve going directly to the media.
> 
> As I said, "people *shouldn't* be able to just decide on their own that the media gets to know about something." He might feel that in his position it was all he _could_ do, which may or may not be true, but that doesn't change that "ideally," he _shouldn't_ be able to. Let's implement a system where people can report these infractions *legally*, if no such system exists, as opposed to changing the system to one where anybody can take whatever they want to the press, as long as they think it's important enough. That nearly defeats the purpose of security clearances entirely.



The problem is that the whole system is ....ed. As far as I can work out there is absolutely no way that anyone could raise any abuses without going very noisily public. Call me paranoid but there are far too many vested interests who could shut anyone up by yanking the "signed to secrecy" chain. Private contractors, all the three letter agencies, politicians. Money and/or power.

Private contractors want government contracts. And who has political oversight of these entities?

Three letter agencies want their budget. I can't guess that there are many senior civil servants (as we call govt department employees here in the UK) who want their kingdoms cut back.

Politicians... well, most of them have vested interests, but even so the whole retarded "War on Terror" has a lot to blame here. It seems that these 3 words can be used to push any bullshit past politicians who are scared to be seen to be "soft" on "terrorists". They also have no idea what to look for in legislation and on oversight committees.

What a load of bollocks. 

The UK is as bad as the US, I have no doubt, but the US holds much of the global infrastructure of the Internet. This is an international problem, not just a local one for the yanks to sort out. It affect everyone who is on-line. Everyone.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm not going to lie, this whole situation is hard for me to work out / deal with internally. As I mentioned earlier, I used to work in the intel field, and as far as I was told in my little corner of the intel world, collecting on domestic targets was a _huge_ red flag. We just didn't do it, and there were strictly outlined consequences if it happened. I sortof always just assumed that in some parts of the community and under very specific conditions it happened anyways, with a number of controls in place. Despite how I might seem in here so far, I was actually pretty angry when I found out about how broad and sweeping the collection Snowden revealed were, if for no other reason than because I had been told that's the sort of thing we just don't do, and for very good reason. In a sense, that government betrayal hits me harder than those who've never been behind the scenes.

On the other hand, having been a member of that community, I'm very sensitive to the needs of a successful intelligence operation. Two of those needs are confidentiality and its bedfellow nondisclosure. It isn't easy to get a high-level government security clearance. There is hoop after hoop after hoop to jump through, all wrapped in miles and miles of red tape (ever had a polygraph? Good times!). Everyone in the community is in a strange way linked through not only their allegiance to the same country and organization (military branch, alphabet soup agency, etc), but also through having gone through all of the necessary precautions to become members of the community. In a way, it instills an attitude similar to "snitches get stitches," to put it very inelegantly. We join the community knowing full well the consequences of violating the rules we agree to in order to join, so it simply _*can't*_ sit well with me when someone leaks classified information, regardless of its content. 

So... I hate the surveillance that was revealed to have been going on. I'm glad it's come to light. Counterintuitively, though, my mind refuses to accept that the present circumstances make leaking of classified information acceptable because of my own personal experiences in the field.

MY BRAIN HAS A CONFUSE.


Sure wish I could drink...


----------



## estabon37 (Jul 2, 2013)

Strange as this may sound, this case makes me feel as if we need more than just laws that attempt to protect whistleblowers, we need an independent arena that can work with them and advise them on their best course of action. Wikileaks just isn't good enough on its own. In spite of the fact that I think Snowden has essentially done the right thing (this doesn't mean I condone his every action, more his choice to publicise this specific info), the thing we all hear the most about now is Snowden himself. This is exactly the same thing that happened with Julian Assange: I remember watching the news last year when Assange was making a public statement from the embassy he's living in, and the BBC report just filmed him behind their reporter, who was giving a watered-down version of the gist of the statement, drowning Assange out completely. If we're not gonna listen to the dude, why are we giving him airtime?

My biggest and I think only problem with Snowden / Assange is their seeming desire for people to know who they are. Deep Throat wasn't identified for decades, and didn't need to be, because it would have been an unnecessary distraction to a much greater problem. Again, I think society is better off knowing the extent to which their governments monitor citizens, but I don't think we know how to handle it when we can put a name and face to a 'scandal'.


----------



## flexkill (Jul 2, 2013)

Yet we can't get one motherfvcker to tell us where the aliens are hidden at Area 51!


----------



## tommychains (Jul 3, 2013)

So the US still has no clue where he is, and they've even had a foreign president's plane make an emergency landing over it.

Round of applause for this years hide and seek world champion!


----------



## nickgray (Jul 3, 2013)

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master


----------



## Jakke (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm set against the NSA


----------



## Xaios (Jul 3, 2013)

Jakke said:


> I'm set against the NSA



Dude, it's a Mac. THE CIA ALREADY HAS DIRECT CONTROL OVER IT, ITS OWNER AND THE OWNER'S DOG.

DOS: The only way to stay safe.


----------



## GXPO (Jul 4, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm not going to lie, this whole situation is hard for me to work out / deal with internally. As I mentioned earlier, I used to work in the intel field, and as far as I was told in my little corner of the intel world, collecting on domestic targets was a _huge_ red flag. We just didn't do it, and there were strictly outlined consequences if it happened. I sortof always just assumed that in some parts of the community and under very specific conditions it happened anyways, with a number of controls in place. Despite how I might seem in here so far, I was actually pretty angry when I found out about how broad and sweeping the collection Snowden revealed were, if for no other reason than because I had been told that's the sort of thing we just don't do, and for very good reason. In a sense, that government betrayal hits me harder than those who've never been behind the scenes.
> 
> On the other hand, having been a member of that community, I'm very sensitive to the needs of a successful intelligence operation. Two of those needs are confidentiality and its bedfellow nondisclosure. It isn't easy to get a high-level government security clearance. There is hoop after hoop after hoop to jump through, all wrapped in miles and miles of red tape (ever had a polygraph? Good times!). Everyone in the community is in a strange way linked through not only their allegiance to the same country and organization (military branch, alphabet soup agency, etc), but also through having gone through all of the necessary precautions to become members of the community. In a way, it instills an attitude similar to "snitches get stitches," to put it very inelegantly. We join the community knowing full well the consequences of violating the rules we agree to in order to join, so it simply _*can't*_ sit well with me when someone leaks classified information, regardless of its content.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting to see this from your point of view. It's probably a fairly rare with regards to people I'll ever come into contact with. 

I personally (personally as I have no information to prove my points) doubt that any legal route he'd taken to try and safe guard this information into the hands of the citizen would've been blocked at every single turn. You said so yourself, signing nondisclosure agreements, acceptiong liability for all and any pieces of divulged information etc, I just can't see a way that information of that level of formal catagorisation would ever filter through legal channels. [Irony] Someone would probably be reading his eulegy as we speak. [/irony]

That being said, he probably didn't agree to not defend himself when liability was determined. Only in this case he's gained the most powerful enemy any man ever could in the history of time and his only defense is staying the .... away from them at all cost. He won't stand a damn chance. 

Curious, at what level would you completely condone whistle blowing despite anything you may have signed?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 4, 2013)

GXPO said:


> Curious, at what level would you completely condone whistle blowing despite anything you may have signed?




I honestly don't know. This whole situation has caused me to have to look inward and evaluate my own convictions, and that's an ongoing process.

I suppose I'd completely condone it if the whistle blowing lead to saving American lives from corrupt government practices, or some other issue where there is a clear and significant danger to health and public safety, especially if time is a factor and going through official channels would increase the danger. 

In the current situation that's obviously not the case, _but_ the offenses reported are still egregious. Ideally there would be official channels he could have taken to report the problems while guaranteeing his safety from unreasonable government persecution. However, nobody could ever accuse this of being an ideal world, so... I'm left having to have a long, hard think on it.


----------



## asher (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm not totally sure how I feel about this, because I do see what Tim is getting at - though I think I do fall fairly strongly on the "need to protect whistleblowers more" side.

However, I'm just going to leave this here.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 5, 2013)

oh my


----------



## Xaios (Jul 5, 2013)

asher said:


> I'm not totally sure how I feel about this, because I do see what Tim is getting at - though I think I do fall fairly strongly on the "need to protect whistleblowers more" side.
> 
> However, I'm just going to leave this here.



Has anyone that's gotten this ad clicked on it? If so, does it actually link to legitimate discussion, or is it simply ad profiteering?


----------



## tommychains (Jul 5, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Has anyone that's gotten this ad clicked on it? If so, does it actually link to legitimate discussion, or is it simply ad profiteering?



I've seen is ad on here a lot. I'm afraid to click on it though, 99% of the time it's ad profiting or a scam.

Or it could be a sincere nigerian prince along with making you a millionare, selling viagra at steep discounts 

I also saw that this really pissed off one of the countries involved (the president of that country's plane was emergency landed over this) and they threatened to close their US embassy.


----------



## Randy (Jul 5, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Has anyone that's gotten this ad clicked on it? If so, does it actually link to legitimate discussion, or is it simply ad profiteering?



It links to a mostly rhetorical poll on these guy's website:



> Newsmax Media is a conservative [1] American news media organization founded by Christopher W. Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It operates the news website Newsmax.com and publishes Newsmax magazine.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media

It's full of "Do you trust Obama to oversea secret intelligence operations?" type bait.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 13, 2013)




----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 13, 2013)

Isn't it the UK that has security cameras everywhere?

I guess the gif wouldn't make as much sense if it was an animated modem, though .


----------



## CrashRG (Jul 15, 2013)

I honestly hope he spills everything he knows......This country needs the chaos, because eventually from that chaos will come a new day, and hopefully a government that is run the way it's supposed to be run, by the people.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 15, 2013)

cwhitey2 said:


> My problem with the whole thing is you don't even have to say anything threatening or anti government. Just publicaly disagreeing can get you into some form of trouble. There's really no need to spy on your own people when less then .01% are terrorists. (Excuse me if my % is wrong, but I have never once felt threatened/unsafe in this country)
> 
> I don't feel that there is justification for it all. Hell I'm more scared of the government then the 'terrorists'
> 
> /rant



Isn't this the kinda shit we scoff at nations like Cuba for?


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Jul 31, 2013)

Recent development in this case:

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' | World news | theguardian.com

"The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed."

waaanh waaanh waaaaaaanh


----------



## Watty (Aug 2, 2013)

CrashRG said:


> I honestly hope he spills everything he knows......This country needs the chaos, because eventually from that chaos will come a new day, and hopefully a government that is run the way it's supposed to be run, by the people.
> 
> Maybe it's just wishful thinking.



No, this country has enough chaos to worry about right now, thanks. Once our populace is more fully comprised of people who understand where we're headed, we'll be just fine.

With regards to Snowden...he's going to change little. There's more than just one herd of dark horses in the US out for their own interests, and the farriers they've got will be able to put a lid on anything he does manage to play up.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 2, 2013)

Russia gives Snowden asylum, Obama-Putin summit in doubt | Reuters


----------



## Leveebreaks (Aug 2, 2013)

On the one hand I sympathise with Mr Snowden's conscious decision to spill the beans on what he considered to be crossing the line, but at the same time he had to be spectacularly naive not to think that this sort of thing goes on, and he also signed the official secrets act ( or whatever the equivalent is in the US ) so he knew the consequences. The running and hiding is really distasteful though, Putin probably can't quite believe that the Golden Goose has landed in his backyard.

What really bothers me is that people still seem to think that countries play fair with each other and their citizens, like there is some sort of Queensbury rules that everyone agrees to. Well sorry to smash peoples' hello kitty bubble, but everyone spies on everyone else and has done since the dawn of time. Just because the historical precedents of spying on your own people haven't turned out exactly positively will not change anything.

I think Ken Morley says it all really:


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Aug 4, 2013)

bteband said:


> On the one hand I sympathise with Mr Snowden's conscious decision to spill the beans on what he considered to be crossing the line, but at the same time he had to be spectacularly naive not to think that this sort of thing goes on, and he also signed the official secrets act ( or whatever the equivalent is in the US ) so he knew the consequences. The running and hiding is really distasteful though, Putin probably can't quite believe that the Golden Goose has landed in his backyard.



I agree with your first point, I certainly assumed this level of surveillance was going on well before this information was leaked. However, it is one thing to have a strong suspicion, and another entirely to know for certain. As far as consequences, I believe that him knowing what this would entail makes it all the more admirable. I do not agree with the characterization of "running and hiding," I believe he is well and fully justified to protect himself from punishment by unjust laws. 

It's interesting to note that Putin waiting until after the Manning verdict was handed down to decide for sure to allow Snowden to stay. It allows him to paint Russia as the land of the free and the U.S. as fascists, half of which may be true. Similarly, the U.S. gave shelter to a Russian spy defector in 2010, and still have refused to allow his extradition. Seems like a well-planned move on Snowden's part, to me. 

Russian lawmakers seek return of spy from U.S. - Los Angeles Times

This case may not be the metaphorical straw the breaks the camel's back, but it has helped bring privacy and overreach issues more into the public eye. More people are talking and concerned about these issues than before the leak, and I think that's all you can really hope for in the short-term.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 4, 2013)

I take issue with people saying 'unjust' laws. What they are doing to the public isn't right for sure, but the 'persecution' of Snowden is hardly unjust. He signed a contract saying he wouldn't do X and then he did it anyway. I'd be willing to bet the consequences for doing so were literally spelled out in front of him too.

I have a friend who was talking about a dude who put up a huge gaudy sign in his yard and was told to take it down. He kept clamoring how his first amendment right was being violated, blah blah blah, so he refused and got into trouble with the city. Anyhow, even under this situation that is total bullshit because you know the zoning laws and home owner rules prior to ever signing the deed to your house/property (contract). If he didn't agree with the terms and still signed then he shouldn't be able to play the victim. Plenty of places across this nation have looser zoning laws and/or no home owners association that he could have easily moved to.

To bring this back together, my point is I'm not upset that he shed some light on this issue (glad in fact) and to some degree it is definitely the smarter move to not come back to the US, but the consequences he faces for doing what he did are not 'unjust'. He knew the consequences when he signed the contract and he knew what they could charge him with and what sort of punishments that could entail. If he knew he was going to get screwed then it is all on him that he decided to do it anyhow.


----------



## The Reverend (Aug 4, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I take issue with people saying 'unjust' laws. What they are doing to the public isn't right for sure, but the 'persecution' of Snowden is hardly unjust. He signed a contract saying he wouldn't do X and then he did it anyway. I'd be willing to bet the consequences for doing so were literally spelled out in front of him too.
> 
> I have a friend who was talking about a dude who put up a huge gaudy sign in his yard and was told to take it down. He kept clamoring how his first amendment right was being violated, blah blah blah, so he refused and got into trouble with the city. Anyhow, even under this situation that is total bullshit because you know the zoning laws and home owner rules prior to ever signing the deed to your house/property (contract). If he didn't agree with the terms and still signed then he shouldn't be able to play the victim. Plenty of places across this nation have looser zoning laws and/or no home owners association that he could have easily moved to.
> 
> To bring this back together, my point is I'm not upset that he shed some light on this issue (glad in fact) and to some degree it is definitely the smarter move to not come back to the US, but the consequences he faces for doing what he did are not 'unjust'. He knew the consequences when he signed the contract and he knew what they could charge him with and what sort of punishments that could entail. If he knew he was going to get screwed then it is all on him that he decided to do it anyhow.



I agree that he knew the consequences and all that. I think what people mean by "unjust laws" is that they think he did the right thing, and so he shouldn't be punished. I'm still up in the air about this whole issue, though I'm leaning more towards a general support of Snowden and a dropping of charges now. I think using words like "unjust" discredits the reasons we have those particular laws. If Snowden was a spy and sold that information to the Chinese, we'd be glad to have those same charges brought on him. Just because someone does something we find admirable doesn't mean that the system has to give them a pass. Especially a system that was betrayed by that person. 

I wish it would, though. Back in the days of sit-ins and freedom riders, you knew that you could go to jail, and while nobody wanted to, some did. Some carried arrest records that never got cleared. The same thing happens when protesters cross the line. Doing the right thing and being charged with violating laws that have a proper place in the books sucks, but it doesn't mean those laws are prejudicial in any way.


----------

