quote: The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.
Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.
...
The order directs Verizon to "continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order". It specifies that the records to be produced include "session identifying information", such as "originating and terminating number", the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and "comprehensive communication routing information".
U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program.
quote: The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
This isn't really a "Republicans" don't care issue Blayne.
Both parties laid the groundwork for what has allowed this to take place, and both parties have refused to stop it. Both parties are even defending it.
Also, we the American people are partially to blame for this. We freak out over every act of terrorism, even though there are oogles of things we experience regularly that are much more likely to kill us.
The government offered near absolute relief at the cost of our 4th Amendment rights, and we as a people consented. I should say all the other Americans, I was out of the country and completely oblivious when The Patriot Act was passed, and all the subsequent nonsense with Iraq, torture, wireless phone tapping, etc.
Still, it's not a Republican made problem.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The point is that if there's anything at all with the whole "small government" party should be up in arms about in their never ending quest to say no to everything Obama and the Democrats want this should be it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So why aren't the Democrats who are all about "protecting individual rights" also on board with this?
They scream about racial profiling, but are OK with universal profiling? Really?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: The point is that if there's anything at all with the whole "small government" party should be up in arms about in their never ending quest to say no to everything Obama and the Democrats want this should be it.
Yeah but you know there isn't. This is just old hat at this point. Yes, they spent 6 years *not* doing anything to promote small government when they were in power. If they were in power again, the same thing would happen. The people here, at least, are aware of this. The lie is so thin it's almost easy to forget it is a lie at all, instead of an agreed-upon sort of winking fairy tale, like Santa Claus.
The Republicans have not, in the 35 years since their more recent rise to domination of Washington politics, *ever* taken significant steps to limit government. And they never will. Surprised at this? How can you be?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is a serious enough issue-and more importantly, all of the other things it hints at as happening but doesn't announce-that using it to make political hay is absurd. Democrats, the party that is supposed to be concerned with preventing law enforcement (which this is, in a sense, in this hazy War on Terror world) ought to have been apoplectic too, but they're not.
Goes quite a bit deeper than Democrat and Republican. I hope but don't expect people to become seriously angry, but this would be about the first time in the WoT.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure what the hullabaloo is. At least it's legal this time. When Bush did it, it was illegal, but at least Obama's domestic spying went through channels (the same way a lot of us bitched about Bush avoiding those exact channels). Bush argued that even a FISA court would be too restrictive and he needed broad, sole authority to spy without them. And Republicans backed him up hand in glove.
Now everyone is up in arms about Obama doing something they all voted to make legal, that's been going on in some form for a decade? Please. Take the manufactured outrage circus somewhere else.
Seriously though, is Obama having the worst month of his presidency or what?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not angry because it's illegal, I'm angrier because it's legal-because FISA courts almost never turn down a government request, and especially because it's likely that this government power won't ever recede now that it's got nearly a decade of history to it-since the 'War on Terror' is unlikely ever to actually end, Obama's talk about that notwithstanding.
But as an added bonus, I'm angry because I remember-and voted for-Obama in part because of his talk about transparency, which in the event has turned out to be complete bullshit to a degree surprising even to cynics, perhaps.
Republicans don't get to crow about this, obviously, and their outrage I do scorn for its falsehood. But that's not my anger and distrust.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry Rakeesh, I should clarify that I wasn't talking about you just now, I was talking about people in Congress, and to a lesser extent the media.
YOUR anger is totally justified, as is mine. I've been angry about this for years, I'm just not sure what can be done about it. But I'm also angry about the current politicizing of it, and the naked hypocrisy of people who a few years ago defended this thing left and right are now crying foul. And for that matter, regular citizens who didn't think it was a big deal when Bush was doing it are now saying it's unprecedented because Obama is doing it.
Coming on the heels of all these other "scandals," I'm sure it looks sinister indeed, but they're the ones that are annoying me in all this.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate thing to be upset about, I'm just seriously in danger of detaching a retina from all the eye rolling I'm doing at the long line of hypocrites standing up to make hay out of this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now everyone is up in arms about Obama doing something they all voted to make legal, that's been going on in some form for a decade?
I may quickly note that some of us that are upset by this don't have a vote in all this and were upset all along.
I also think some of this is the difference between suspecting a thing and knowing a thing.
For example, going into the past a bit, it's one thing to suspect that the US has been carelessly drone bombing people. It's another to hear directly from the horse's mouth that all adult males killed by bombs are assumed to be combatants unless proven otherwise. It's one thing to suspect that the US has been careless torturing people. It's another to actually see the actual diplomatic cable that describes how a German was kidnapped, tortured, and then dumped in the middle of no-where simply because he had the wrong name.
In this case, it's one thing to suspect that the US is electronically spying on the rest of us, it's another to have the exact list of the nine companies with insecure back-doors that are officially acting as parts of US intelligence (Or have Obama go up and defend the programme while throwing non-Americans under the bus).
Edit to add: The Guardian now also has its hands on a Presidential Order authorizing hacking attacks on foreign targets? When it rains, it pours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this event broadsided me
i am completely baffled to find out, through the outrage at this leak, that people didn't realize and accept that this was totally obviously happening and had been since USA PATRIOT
i mean did people really not think the NSA & co were not using the powers that the act granted to them? did anyone think they weren't watching phone data?
i would not be surprised if they could and have already been watching skype transactions, too
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now everyone is up in arms about Obama doing something they all voted to make legal, that's been going on in some form for a decade?
I may quickly note that some of us that are upset by this don't have a vote in all this and were upset all along.
I also think some of this is the difference between suspecting a thing and knowing a thing.
For example, going into the past a bit, it's one thing to suspect that the US has been carelessly drone bombing people. It's another to hear directly from the horse's mouth that all adult males killed by bombs are assumed to be combatants unless proven otherwise. It's one thing to suspect that the US has been careless torturing people. It's another to actually see the actual diplomatic cable that describes how a German was kidnapped, tortured, and then dumped in the middle of no-where simply because he had the wrong name.
In this case, it's one thing to suspect that the US is electronically spying on the rest of us, it's another to have the exact list of the nine companies with insecure back-doors that are officially acting as parts of US intelligence (Or have Obama go up and defend the programme while throwing non-Americans under the bus).
Edit to add: The Guardian now also has its hands on a Presidential Order authorizing hacking attacks on foreign targets? When it rains, it pours.
Read my second post and I'm a little more specific in where my annoyance is outraged. Everyone who has been upset with this from the start of the PATRIOT ACT is fine.
Everyone who thought the PATRIOT ACT was hunky dory until Obama started acting on it is a huge hypocrite, and I'm calling them out. And that's a LOT of people.
As for the hacking thing - good. So long as it's China we're hacking.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also, we the American people are partially to blame for this. We freak out over every act of terrorism, ...
Besides our responses to terrorism and FISA and the Patriot Act, the amount of information we publicly volunteer in our digital social-networked lives also lays more blame at our own feet.
As has been repeated so many times, "don't post anything online you don't want to be public information." That sentiment extends to having *any online presence at all*. And since phones and internet are merging into one massively-interconnected network, access to data and communications is immediately available for the taking. To believe that the NSA merely collects metadata is naive. They have the whole kit 'n caboodle.
With out new online culture, we willingly make everything available. After all, we live by Facebook, the CIA's top surveillance program. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To believe that the NSA merely collects metadata is naive. They have the whole kit 'n caboodle.
I just want to address this quickly:
They only collect phone metadata. This is because there are laws which apply to telephone communications that prevent the collection of anything else.
They collect all Internet traffic. This is because communications over webcam, Skype, chat, forums, Facebook, etc. are not considered "telecommunications" to which those privacy laws apply. As a consequence, they can actually collect and store the content of those transmissions.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Oh. Thanks for the info, Tom.
I guess text messaging counts as telecommunications then? Do they also record metadata on text messages or only calls? All the news sources I have read only mention phone calls.
On hybrid communication, I suppose they can record content of phone calls made from a regular phone to a Skype account from the Skype end of the conversation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to say, I'm impressed by McCain's response to all this.
He's basically telling his fellow congressmen to sit down and shut up. Most of them voted in favor of the law that allows what's come to light, and for them to cry wolf after casting a vote is highly disingenuous.
Kudos.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
The guy behind the leaked documents, Edward Snowden, he's got guts.
No matter what the NSA/CIA is supposed to do, according to Snowden they regularly capture information well beyond just the "baddies".
quote:His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.
That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.
"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good."
quote:Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".
From his video interview about domestic surveillance:
quote: "The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyzes them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends.
"So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government, or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so. ... Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere ... Not all analysts have the ability to target everything, but I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail..."
As a likely 2016 GOP Presidential candidate, he is high profile enough maybe the lawsuit will go somewhere. If nothing else, he can definitely draw a crowd and keep focus on the issue.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh man, that is one powerful video and he's in Hong Kong.
F*** yeah.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure what the hullabaloo is. At least it's legal this time. When Bush did it, it was illegal, but at least Obama's domestic spying went through channels (the same way a lot of us bitched about Bush avoiding those exact channels). Bush argued that even a FISA court would be too restrictive and he needed broad, sole authority to spy without them. And Republicans backed him up hand in glove.
Now everyone is up in arms about Obama doing something they all voted to make legal, that's been going on in some form for a decade? Please. Take the manufactured outrage circus somewhere else.
This. I am so tired of conservatives smugly asking why we aren't upset about this just because it is "our guy" doing it. Of course, we are upset. No one thinks that it is okay. But we have been screaming about this for 12 years. It isn't new. There isn't fresh outrage for a bridge we crossed years ago.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: They only collect phone metadata. This is because there are laws which apply to telephone communications that prevent the collection of anything else.
This depends on your definition of 'collection'. All phone conversations are electronically listened to, cell and\or landline. This has been happening for decades.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am so tired of conservatives smugly asking why we aren't upset about this just because it is "our guy" doing it. Of course, we are upset. No one thinks that it is okay. But we have been screaming about this for 12 years. It isn't new. There isn't fresh outrage for a bridge we crossed years ago.
Actually, the majority of people in the country think it's okay. And the majority of people in the country thought it was okay seven years ago as well.* So saying no one thinks it's okay is akin to saying no one thinks gay marriage is okay. They have about the same levels of support, albeit from very different sectors of the population.
Furthermore, about half of the Democrats who thought Prism-style spying was wrong under Bush think it's fine under Obama. Similarly, about 2/3 of Republicans who thought it was fine under Bush have a problem with it under Obama. We are partisan beasts, who's tribal mentality influences our opinions constantly. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if this had come to light during John McCain's second term your response would be something other than 'Of course we're outraged. We're just fatigued because we've been fighting this for so long. That's the only reason we're not shouting about it.' Just as mine would have been different than it is, as well.
*Note: poll wording effects things here. Framing things in one way or another can lead to massive apparent swings in opinion. Just more evidence that people's expressions of opinion, whether in polls or message boards, are strongly influenced by all sorts of deep currents and subconscious biases.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you hit the nail on the head, Peter. The fear that terrorism prompts crosses party lines, although at the high political level it may be differing degrees of cynical.
Obama is actually notably worse than Dubya with regards to transparency and civil liberties when it comes to security questions. He's worse on whistle blowers. So on that angle, Republicans do have a legitimate gripe...except it's so very often tied to 'this is an outrage, this is a violation, etc.' because suddenly it's not their trusted guy doing the violating and suddenly it becomes objectionable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Obama is actually notably worse than Dubya with regards to transparency and civil liberties when it comes to security questions. He's worse on whistle blowers.
haha yeah he's atrocious, it legitimately starts to undermine everything else he can stand up for.
of course as he was the only decent candidate this time around i suppose we can all just hope he'll change some of that, even if not for idealistic purposes and more for saving his own skin
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Can someone please outline, or point me to a page that summarizes, the issues with the NSA doing this and why I should care?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Briefly, the US is recording all metadata on phone calls, can request data at will from nine major US Internet companies, and has been hacking civilian and military infrastructure in China and Hong Kong for over 15 years.
As for why you should care, if you're not American, you should care because governments such as the UK and Canada have been suspected of using the US programme to go around domestic privacy protections. Elsewhere, countries such as Sweden have banned public sector use of Google Apps due to the privacy risk. In China, right-wing groups such as Human Rights NGOs and Ai Wei Wei are rallying around the leaker (Snowden) for taking a stand against government surveillance and for Internet freedom. Left-wing groups are obviously more concerned about the US hacking weakening homeland security.
If you're American, well, I guess it depends on how much you trust your government.
[ June 13, 2013, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well the issue is as follows-in part. Laws exist which compel private companies such as Verizon (and these same laws would also apply to all other communication companies) to give up when ordered nearly all of the data about the calls their customers make using their service-numbers from, to, how long, how often, what times of day, how they're routed, how often the person called calls another person you call, so on and so forth. These orders are so secret that the companies can only say that if they were given such an order, they would be compelled to obey but couldn't disclose that they had been.
This information will be kept more or less indefinitely. You don't need to be calling anyone suspicious or even foreign to have your data captured by this surveillance. The oversight for this is tied up in FISA courts which, despite what government will tell you, are rubber stamp courts. They almost never (roughly or even less than 1% of the time) reject government requests for additional surveillance, power, less oversight, etc. These courts are also secret.
It's incredibly difficult-effectively impossible-for a citizen to call the government to account over this because of standing-you need to be able (this is a simplification) to show that you were impacted by the program. But these programs are classified, so the documents necessary to do this can't be released to the citizens impacted.
Because this data is kept indefinitely, you could be surveilled today-and have been if you use cell phones, almost certainly-and should you come to the attention of the NSA or many other agencies in ten years for something, they'll be able to dig into your life now to support their investigation then. Should this later investigation be unjustified, you'll have no ability to demand an accounting of it.
All in the name of fighting terrorism. Support for these programs are given as terrorist plots prevented-few of which we ever hear about and can evaluate for ourselves. Details of these programs are kept secret, because terrorists can't know our methods-as though they don't already live in a world where cell phone use is very carefully controlled, lest they draw a drone strike.
The issue is that these powers were supposed to be, when they were written, extraordinary and temporary. We're in the midst of seeing that they aren't, at all. The issue is that the justification for these programs-combatting violent extremism-will never, ever end and so it's more than a little likely that neither will these or other programs about which we know nothing.
You should care if you care about the government demanding information about who you communicate with, just because you happen to be communicating with a cell phone in America. You should also be concerned because if/when this level of government monitoring becomes the new status quo, a generation later it will be considered where privacy *starts*-that is, that government gets to know all of this about who you communicate with, and that's where it builds from for new surveillance.
If any of that concerns you, it's an issue. If it doesn't, it shouldn't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or put another way
quote:For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them. ... Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I appreciate your posts but I still see no reason why I should be concerned. I'm not a terrorist. I'm not planning a terrorist attack. I don't care if the government collects data about my phone calls because I have nothing to hide.
quote: Because this data is kept indefinitely, you could be surveilled today-and have been if you use cell phones, almost certainly-and should you come to the attention of the NSA or many other agencies in ten years for something, they'll be able to dig into your life now to support their investigation then.
What is wrong with that? If I am a criminal in ten years, and the government has evidence to help bring me to justice from ten years prior of listening to a phone call, then they should be allowed to use that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What is wrong with that? If I am a criminal in ten years, and the government has evidence to help bring me to justice from ten years prior of listening to a phone call, then they should be allowed to use that.
What about having cameras in your home to monitor your behavior there. Surely if you have nothing to hide that shouldn't be a problem. And what if it could be used in the future to help prosecute a criminal? Where do you think the line should be drawn on what information the government is entitled to have about your individual activities?
How would you feel about a system where your driving could be monitored such that you would automatically be ticketed for speeding every time you drifted over the speed limit? What if you only received the bill for your accumulated violations once a year? How much do you think that would cost you? How might it change your behavior and that of other motorists?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I appreciate your posts but I still see no reason why I should be concerned. I'm not a terrorist. I'm not planning a terrorist attack. I don't care if the government collects data about my phone calls because I have nothing to hide.
It's remarkable to me that this kind of thing can be said sincerely. First of all, this won't just be about terrorism forever. You've heard of RICO? Did you know that when it was created, it was designed with the notion that it would only apply to the Mob because they were so unique? Look who it's applied to now.
Already the government is attempting to wield the same sorts of laws and surveillance tools on 'eco-terrorists' (that is, people who attempt to film what goes on in farms and slaughterhouses) that are meant for use against al Qaeda.
Nothing to hide? My blood pressure rises hearing that sort of frightened, self-righteous talk. It's not actually a statement about you at all, it's an attack on others who for some strange reason *don't* want the government to surveil them just because it can without any actual suspicion or cause. Why don't you just throw away the Fourth Amendment entirely, Gaal, if this coward-talk* is going to be your standard.
*I chose that word carefully. It is becoming so crippled and dehumanized by fear that you actually *want* Big Brother there because 'you're not a terrorist'. Well why should you have the right to an attorney if you're accused of a crime? Nothing to hide. Why shouldn't you let the police into your house at random to search? Nothing to hide.
We endure hundreds of times the number of deaths each year from drunk driving as we do from terrorism. Can we next expect you, Gaal, to endorse government mandated breathalyzers in every car? Random blood draws at random police stops? Undercover bartenders?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I'm not planning a terrorist attack. I don't care if the government collects data about my phone calls because I have nothing to hide.
You have absolutely nothing at all to hide?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What if you call a Republican Headquarters to make a donation, and this is noted by a Democratic majority government?
What if you are turned down from a job with the government, or with a governmental contractor, because you've been visiting environmental sites and they conflict with a pro-business attitude of someone in government.
What if you are fired from your government funded research project because you've called dial-a-prayer....or because you haven't?
The right to privacy is not there to protect those who are doing things illegal, its there to stop the government from finding and punishing people who are doing legal things, but something the people in the government finds offensive.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: What about having cameras in your home to monitor your behavior there. Surely if you have nothing to hide that shouldn't be a problem. And what if it could be used in the future to help prosecute a criminal? Where do you think the line should be drawn on what information the government is entitled to have about your individual activities?
Easy, it's what I feel is an invasion of privacy. The phone calls doesn't make me feel uncomfortable while cameras in my home would. You're taking it to the extreme. I can take it to the other end of the extreme, if you don't feel comfortable allowing the NSA access to phone calls for them to do their job of national security, do you feel comfortable allowing the IRS to know what your income is so they can tax you accordingly? Maybe the government shouldn't be allowed to have any information on us because it's all an invasion of privacy? Where do you draw the line?
quote: *I chose that word carefully. It is becoming so crippled and dehumanized by fear that you actually *want* Big Brother there because 'you're not a terrorist'. Well why should you have the right to an attorney if you're accused of a crime? Nothing to hide. Why shouldn't you let the police into your house at random to search? Nothing to hide.
We endure hundreds of times the number of deaths each year from drunk driving as we do from terrorism. Can we next expect you, Gaal, to endorse government mandated breathalyzers in every car? Random blood draws at random police stops? Undercover bartenders?
Slippery slope much?
Random blood draws would be a painful inconvenience to me, while this situation is not. However there are already checkpoint to for DUIs, I'm assuming you don't support those?
These comparisons are pointless because obviously we make decisions on what to allow the government on a situation by situation basis. We allow somethings to be done in order for the government to function. License plates to identify who is driving what car. Limits on how much you can tint your windows so police officers can see into your car. We draw the line on what we feel comfortable allowing with the inconvenience or invasion of privacy being worth allowing the government to do a job that we deem worth doing. In this case, while the threat of terrorism may be exaggerated, I also think the invasion of privacy of this isn't that serious.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I find the idea that the government will only ever use this information for combating terrorism and that they will be able to prevent other parties from getting access to it to be naive to the point of bizarre.
Of course they are going to abuse it and of course other parties are either through government contacts or outright skullduggery going to access this information for their own ends.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Monsanto, BP, or Goldman Sachs is already all up in this system.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That you would call the gradual creep of government power a slippery slope only serves to illustrate how poorly informed you are on the matter. It's now a question whether we should call people who smuggle cameras into slaughterhouses terrorists. RICO was supposed to be only for the mob. The provisions in the Patriot Act were supposed to be temporary and extraordinary, and you're already brushing them off as trivial. The secret courts that are supposed to serve as oversight for the people almost never reject government requests. This non-invasion of privacy is apparently so unimportant to you that the government should even be allowed to keep it secret.
Do you hear what you're saying? The government shouldn't even have to inform the people what extent it is allowed to spy on them. The threat of terrorism is absolutely, incredibly exaggerated and the only way someone could think this type of encroachment wasn't very serious is if they lived in a world where what is legal now is the standard forever. Your counter examples of tint, license plates, and the rest don't signify. In all of those cases you at least have to be driving on a public road-and tint isn't just so cops can see in. With these programs, all you need to do is use the Internet or your cell phone.
And yes, I do disapprove of DUI checkpoints. If you've got 'nothing to hide' (you do), by all means, share it voluntarily on your own. Don't go cringing about terrorism in my name and say everyone needs to give up...unless they've got nothing to hide. Holy cow, is that just an obnoxious thing to say.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is a camera at every ATM that records you while you are at the machine.
I do not mind because it is protection against being robbed or forced to withdraw money against my will.
And I realize that the odds of my time at the machine being seen by anyone else is tiny unless a crime was happening.
Yet the moment someone uses that camera to virtual-stalk me, to gather my PIN number, or photo-shop the video with one of Micheal Jackson Porn, I would never use the ATM again.
The Government is claiming that these programs are like that ATM camera. We won't notice them. They won't harm us.
I am not afraid that the government would use that information to harm me.
I am afraid that employees of the government, or hackers attacking the government could get that information and could find a way for it to harm me.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"This non-invasion of privacy is apparently so unimportant to you that the government should even be allowed to keep it secret."
"Do you hear what you're saying? The government shouldn't even have to inform the people what extent it is allowed to spy on them."
Please quote where I've said that. I said the government should have the ability to collect data based on telephone calls, not that the government doesn't have to disclose to the public that it is doing so.
"Your counter examples of tint, license plates, and the rest don't signify. In all of those cases you at least have to be driving on a public road-and tint isn't just so cops can see in."
So that's where you draw the line? Interesting. What about the my IRS example? Your income isn't necessarily being earned in a public area, should the government be allowed to know it?
"It's now a question whether we should call people who smuggle cameras into slaughterhouses terrorists"
What are you talking about? How is that the question?
If you're really worried about this on that basis then I don't see how you can trust the government to carry out any task without ridiculous corruption.
"If you've got 'nothing to hide' (you do), by all means, share it voluntarily on your own."
Do I really have to point out why this solution makes no sense?
Do you support paying taxes? If so, then by all means, pay them voluntarily on your own.
"Don't go cringing about terrorism in my name and say everyone needs to give up...unless they've got nothing to hide. Holy cow, is that just an obnoxious thing to say."
I don't know what you're saying here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not a solution, just, like, pure straightforwardness.
since you have nothing to hide, send me the last five years of your bank statements and credit card receipts once it's not a whole lot of trouble. you can send it to samprimary@gmail.com
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
Here's a relevant quote from a Reddit user
"I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.
With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.
2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, **** it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.
3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.
You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.
4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "**** you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a ****ing wound on my leg?"
"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.
Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.
You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.
This all happened in the country where I live.
You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?
You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?
Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?
I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.
I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: not a solution, just, like, pure straightforwardness.
since you have nothing to hide, send me the last five years of your bank statements and credit card receipts once it's not a whole lot of trouble. you can send it to samprimary@gmail.com
You guys are really intent on making ridiculous comparisons. Sending you that info has nothing to do with national security. It also has nothing to do with, you know, phone records. Which is kind of what we're talking about.
I have nothing to hide from the NSA in regards to my phone records. Let me know if I need to make any more obvious clarifications.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In similar fashion, a person without a phone has nothing to fear from this legislation.
(On the other hand, you clearly have a computer. So there are a couple other programs you should care about.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sending you that info has nothing to do with national security.
I'll make that judgment after I've read it myself, citizen.
But if you want to, you can send me your phone records too, since it is now artificially limited to there that you have nothing to hide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Because it's spineless and un-American?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
How is this significantly different than an IRS audit and other "investigations" the IRS engages in?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
IRS investigations are targeted and narrowly focused, based on a known limited set of data related to the topic of the investigation. For instance, I recently received a letter indicating that my reported mortgage interest deduction did not jibe with the payments reported by my bank and they asked me to provide supporting documentation.
They did not monitor all of my internet and telephone activity to look for more discrepancies though surely they could make a case for doing so. But no one would stand for it. Only "terrorism" has that kind of sway that even supposed small government people are making excuses for ubiquitous surveillance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Put another way, because you have to do something other than just be an American communicating using a private company for the government to start spying on you. And even then, you often (always?) know the IRS is auditing you.
And since when exactly did the strong conservative Republican supporter look at massive government surveillance programs and try to find ways that it's OK?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The three most important conversations about this expansion of surveillance.
quote:Q: Did Edward Snowden do the right thing in going public?
William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand.
Q: So Snowden did the right thing?
Binney: Yes, I think he did.
Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start?
J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct.
Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making.
Wiebe: We failed, yes.
Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle.
and
quote:Kimberly Dozier, Guardian News US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond?
Snowden US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.
Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.
Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.
and
quote:The G20 leak is massive and I've been saying all along that the most danger from PRISM and the other NSA activities isn't just about privacy. They're making the US look really ****ing scary internationally and it's going to make diplomacy really damn hard in the future because they were being irresponsible. They can't really claim it's for American security either when the projects themselves seriously jeopardize our security when they've been publicly discovered. You can't hide massive projects like that forever.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I admit that I have not been following this case as closely as I should so I'm not as informed as some of you on the specifics but I feel I can respond to some of the more philosophical aspects.
For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
Let's say you're a conservative during the Bush Patriot Act days. Despite the fact that the Patriot Act violates many basic conservative principles, you probably supported it because you trusted Bush and his administration to apply it appropriately and not abuse the powers granted. But now Obama is in charge, do you still have the same trust for your government? What if he secretly used this information to dig up dirt on conservative organizations?
Or maybe you are a present day liberal. You trust that Obama will use the information from this NSA program appropriately and not abuse it for his own personal gain and that of his party. But what about the next election? Would you trust this same information in the hands of some "radical conservative"? What if he secretly used it to try and dig up dirt on the leading Pro-choice activists in order to blackmail them into changing their stance?
You say none of that could happen. What about the recent case of denying conservative organizations tax exempt status? I don't care what your political inclinations, you should be outraged by that. If you meet the legal definition of tax exempt status, you should get it regardless of your political views. As repulsive as they are, even hate groups are entitled to such status if they meet the requirements. Even perfectly legal activities from those with "nothing to hide" can be used against you by those with differing views.
Or perhaps you are bipartisan and have a fair amount of trust for both sides. Can you be absolutely certain that will remain the case for decades to come? What if some really radical and unscrupulous character gets elected somewhere down the line? Remember that any power you grant to a current administration will still be available to all future administrations. This is one of the basic problems with monarchies. A truly great, benevolent king with the best interests of his people at heart could be a really good and efficient system of government but what if the power corrupts him? What do you do when he dies and his son is an evil, twisted monster? As great as it would be for such a great king to have all the power to implement his ideals, do you really want all of his successors to have the same power?
Of course, covert intelligence gathering has always been an important means for governments to acquire information on criminals, hostile foreign governments, terrorists and such. To try and prevent such information from being abused, laws are in place to severely limit who can have access, what they can access and what that information can be used for. What concerns me is not that this information is being gathered but that there appears to be very little oversight in its use and access.
I have no problem with an FBI agent showing a judge sufficient evidence of probable cause against a terror suspect and being granted a warrant to access his records. That warrant would include the specifics of exactly what can and can't be searched for and used. What I can't accept is a government official being granted full access to such information with the only oversight being to tell some secret court that "I need it for national security reasons." Why? Who are you investigating? What are you looking for? What evidence do you have that these people may be engaged in illegal activities? What illegal activities are they suspected of? Why do you think the information you seek is in this database? What do you intend to do with this information? Who else will have access to this information? Only if these questions can be reasonably answered should a warrant granting use of that specific information be issued.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
No, I would say that this doesn't represent the general winds of discontent in these parts. Not at all.
In fact, mostly everyone here is expressing concern at the precedent being set by allowing the government unchecked, secret and apparently nearly unlimited access to our personal information. And not because of what they might do with that information. I'm actually not very concerned about what they might do with this info, because anything they do with it will be very hard to direct at individuals.
This was always about a lot of data, and using analysis to identify patterns in the mountains of information- it's not about reading my Mom's text messages to her friends. The government doesn't care about that in any sense other than as a tiny piece of a huge puzzle. However, giving the government access to this information at all, much less in a carte-blanche, completely unrestricted and completely unaccountable way, is irresponsible. It *could* be abused, and that's the important thing: it creates an environment in which its abuse is possible, even if its not likely. And that was precisely the original intent of The Patriot Act: intimidation.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: For some of you, this seems to come down to whether or not you trust the government to use this information appropriately. I want to try to explain why that is a really bad viewpoint.
No, I would say that this doesn't represent the general winds of discontent in these parts. Not at all.
I never said it was a general consensus, I just said some. In fairness, I think it's only one that seemed to feel that way. Sorry for being too lazy to comb through every post to pic out a specific culprit.
As for the rest of your thoughts, I pretty much agree. You did read the rest of my post right?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I hate this, but I think the people can fight back by decoying the system. Someone needs to write a smartphone app that cleverly gets around this somehow, or better yet, hundreds of apps that get around it in dozens of different ways. Then we all need to run them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:The HKSAR Government today (June 23) issued the following statement on Mr Edward Snowden:
Mr Edward Snowden left Hong Kong today (June 23) on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel.
The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.
The HKSAR Government has already informed the US Government of Mr Snowden's departure.
Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong. Ends/Sunday, June 23, 2013 Issued at HKT 16:05
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The last paragraph was my favorite. Really flipping the US the bird.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
All fine with me. Hope he runs as long as he needs to and doesn't wind up in prison. I wish he had more to divulge, too.
Espionage. Freaking please.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I have zero problem with hacking China's computers. As I recall they have quite the little government sponsered hacking industry themselves.
They may not be the enemy of the United States right now, but they are our biggest competitor in just about everything. It's a huge, powerful state that is by far the most likely of all the big, powerful states to become our enemy in the future. I see zero need for kid gloves with them.
The NSA stuff is atrocious. Three thousand people die out of a population of three hundred and fifty million and everyone promptly craps themselves and hands over their civil liberties. Who knew the American population would turn out to be filled with pansies?
Good for Hong Kong, getting Snowden shipped out of there. I hope he can make it to Iceland before he trips over a cord and breaks his neck, or gets jabbed by a ricin umbrella or something.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama:
Good for Hong Kong, getting Snowden shipped out of there. I hope he can make it to Iceland before he trips over a cord and breaks his neck, or gets jabbed by a ricin umbrella or something.
I believe he is headed to Venezuela, which is (I'm sure) going to be richly enjoyed by the anti-US contingent there. There's no WAY they'd ever hand him over to the US. They'd take special pleasure in refusing the request.
He outs the NSA, and gets to retire early to a beautiful tropical country. It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
I am disappointed in the Obama administration. They promised transparency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Espionage. Freaking please.
Well think about it
we caught him spying on americans
surely we cannot let this egregious practice stand
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Obama promised a lot of things he didn't fulfill, and all them I kind of felt was just par for the course when it comes to running for president. The number and scope of promises you need to make to get and keep high office is much larger than the power and influence you have once you get there. But these programs that he has expanded, or at least continued, are exactly what he said he would shut-down or at the very least: open up. And now that they're outed he's basically saying "Yah, we're spying on you, I don't understand why you care. Don't you trust me? Now let's go get the guy that forced us to talk about it." Why is my government exerting so much energy trying to catch Snowden instead of talking to be about the fact that they flagrantly violated the constitution?
Wait, I think I answered my own question.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Honestly though. Snowden just outed the US for massive amounts of what can only be described as "spying" on the entire world, and now the various officials in the US government are throwing a hissy fit that the world won't return Snowden to them? Maybe they think if they make enough noise no one will be able to hear the rest of us yelling "fire".
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See I felt like in the first four years, I was getting exactly what Obama said I was going to get. Federal stimulus, healthcare reform/debate, closing Guantanamo Bay.
The last one stalled, but I had a reason to believe they were encountering problems and just working through them. Then I noticed that surveilance was increasing, Guantanamo went from "working towards" to "just stop talking about it", transparency was just as bad if not worse, and whistle-blowers were being gone after with zeal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I seriously am still just completely broadsided by the very idea that people didn't think the US government was totally doing this
it is like most everyone I know just completely forgot what the USA PATRIOT Act expressly and openly allowed our government to start doing. Well, I mean, some did, but what happened with that? Did they sort of naively expect that the government wasn't going to do it when we gave the power to do it? Did they not think Obama was going to continue it, especially when this was practically autonomous power to do so granted to a number of unelected positions in entire branches of the federal government?
We had so many open warnings that this was totally happening all the time everywhere, we didn't even need the warnings. The bargain was made, we were all here when it happened, and it was announced to us.. Christ, what is so special about Snowden that it opened everyone's eyes to it and even got Obama to start sputtering out Cheneyesque lies and waffling contortion that insisted that the process was "transparent"
as a side note, it turns out the UK's surveillance program is so intense that it puts our own to shame. And in that case I honestly don't know how much of a warning or a pretense was involved with that one. At least with ours there was a single event where an act totally allowed it to happen and I don't know if a similarly obvious passage of power expansion happened in the UK which allowed their massive digital surveillance thing to happen.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
"Girlfriend", not "fiancee", and not certainly not "wife".
I wonder if he told her what he was planning. If not, then yes, I'd be pretty hurt (and feel misused) if I were in her situation.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Snowden is like the hero of a spy novel. Like a non-scifi version of Serenity.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
Did you ever meet her boyfriend in all that time?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes. I'd say hi to him whenever I saw him and we once talked for a few minutes at a Halloween party. He never went dancing with her, though, so we never hung out. I didn't even remember his last name until I saw a picture of him and realized who he was.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
"Girlfriend", not "fiancee", and not certainly not "wife".
I wonder if he told her what he was planning. If not, then yes, I'd be pretty hurt (and feel misused) if I were in her situation.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to define something we already agreed on. If she's his girlfriend it's no big deal?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From steven: It's a fairly happy ending, all things considered.
Except for his girlfriend, who was on the business end of the worst breakup in history that didn't end in death.
Strangely, I know her IRL. Like, my girlfriend and I have gone swing dancing with her almost every Thursday for the past 6 months.
I haven't talked to her since all this happened. I can't imagine her taking it very well. They interviewed another friend of mine about her for a dailymail article, which is really weird to see.
That's a fairly significant amount of time spent with her.
What's she like?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Uh, nice? She's a great dancer and never made me feel uncomfortable for being only moderately good. What are you going after exactly?
As far as time spent - she was one girl in a group of 20-40ish people (depending on the night), I've danced with her fairly often and seen her in a few other places, but we don't exactly know her very well. I was just surprised to see her name all over the internet.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Saw this on the onion:
Former NSA agent Edward Snowden has been accused of treason and is currently the target of an international manhunt. With the U.S. demanding his return to America, The Onion looks at what Snowden’s current options are:
1. Set everything right by returning leaked NSA secrets to their original owners 2. Flee to a nation with widespread public hostility to the U.S., such as the U.S.
Man I love number 2. Crazy thing is that might actually be his best option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Return to the US? In what way might that possibly be his best option?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Uh, nice? She's a great dancer and never made me feel uncomfortable for being only moderately good. What are you going after exactly?
As far as time spent - she was one girl in a group of 20-40ish people (depending on the night), I've danced with her fairly often and seen her in a few other places, but we don't exactly know her very well. I was just surprised to see her name all over the internet.
What am I going after? Nothing?
I was just curious.
I thought from what you said that you were friends with her, rather than being tangentially familiar with her.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Return to the US? In what way might that possibly be his best option?
Well, it probably isn't but:
1. He is catching a lot of flack for running to "unfriendly" countries with even worse records regarding free speech, human rights, etc. Of course these people either fail to realize or just choose to ignore the fact that the only better countries would just ship him back to the states. Never the less, hiding out in China and Russia makes him look less like a whistle blower and more like a spy to some people which dilutes his message.
2. While it is true that he would be arrested as soon as he showed up on US soil, that might be a good thing for his message. He already has significant support here to make sure his case stays in the public eye and he has probably become too famous to simply be eliminated.
3. Coming back and having his day in court could make him an even bigger hero to many.
4. What kind of life can he have as a fugitive in Ecuador? How long before some other country trumps up some damning charges against him to discredit him? Come back and win, he's free and a hero. Lose and he's in jail but how long before protesters and what not convince someone to pardon him?
Still it's a tough call. If I were in his shoes, I might keep running too. But I would definitely seriously consider coming back.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In other words, if he wants to stay a hero, he needs to risk becoming a martyr.
I'm on the fence on that one.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other words, if he wants to stay a hero, he needs to risk becoming a martyr.
I'm on the fence on that one.
So am I but it's not just about being a hero, it's about maximizing the impact of the message which should be important to anyone that takes these extraordinary risks to get that message out. Hiding out in Russia or China makes it easier to paint him as a spy and a traitor, making his message look more like a case of international espionage rather than domestic criminal actions by our own federal government.
But then again, can he trust that he would get a fair trial and receive his basic human rights here in America? Maybe not. While his fame might make it difficult to do, he has to be worried about just getting dumped on gitmo for all eternity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The fact is, by hiding, he's made himself the most high profile whistleblower since the Pentagon Papers. If he came home now, he'd have the best chance for maximum exposure for his trial, which would put this issue under the best microscope is has been under in modern times.
But to do so, he has to take the risk that at the end of the day, he'll be convicted of something and go to jail. Otherwise his sacrifice looks kind of lame next to what some recent men and women have done to get major information out there. He wants to be a hero to Americans for shining a spotlight on questionable programs but he's also grooming himself to be a hero to people who don't like America.
Frankly I think he's a little full of himself.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Which is pretty much exactly what I was getting at.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can replace my previous post with: I agree with Wingracer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Interesting. I'm not familiar with where he considers himself, or thinks others should, deem him a hero. I'm a bit surprised to hear that take on his behavior-particularly since it lines up so neatly with the traditional stance on whistleblowers.
It's not enough, it would seem, to shine a light, so to speak-they must also be willing to jump into the fire as well else they be deemed arrogant somehow. As for me, I'm simply grateful he forced the issue however briefly into public debate, however fleeting that debate will be in the face of what appears to be the new standard, American fear and subservience in the face of terrorism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not so much the fact that he's hiding, or where he's hiding, for me. I think the act of whistleblowing itself is worthy, as is giving up an upper middle class lifestyle in Hawaii to do it.
It's his attitude in interviews. He comes off as self-righteous and smug. And he's creating a victim complex for himself. Admittedly, some of that is valid since he's actually persecuted, but when he talks about how he could be killed by CIA-funded Triad hit squads, my BS alarm starts to sound.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
If he returned to America he would certainly be tortured ala Manning, he should never return without very solid securities to his safety and well being.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
See, I guess I'm just a bit closer to conspiracy theorist than you are, Lyrhawn. My initial response to that was to roll my eyes as well...but frankly I can't completely, 'it's utterly laughable' dismiss the possibility that questions of dealing with finality with Snowden were never on the table anywhere-if not in the short term, then eventually. Various intelligence officials, up to and including the head of the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence have flat-out lied not just to direct questions in the media, but under oath in Congress. They're willing to risk, in their own persons, some pretty sharp penalties. Exactly how outrageous should one think they would be willing to take other risks with many layers of secret separation?
I can't speak to Snowden's attitude-that's a subjective interpretation that we will all evaluate differently. I can say, however, that he's actually explicitly rejected the label of hero-and traitor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I can say, however, that he's actually explicitly rejected the label of hero-and traitor.
The "Aw-shucks folks, I'm no hero" thing doesn't usually play well with me. Unless the person saying it comes off sincere as hell, it usually plays to me like someone using false modesty to in fact increase their status as hero, because Americans love a hero who shuns his own hero status.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The guy's pretty socially awkward and has spent his career working a job that requires a lot of precision in language and yet very little in the way of people skills beyond basic human interaction. Socially awkward people are very frequently accused of arrogance, especially when they're highly intelligent. I think it's far more likely that he simply lacks the ability to effectively portray the false modesty expected by our society than he's trying to play a martyr. I'm curious as to why you're so critical of his motivations and behavior. He's given up a great life on a beautiful island to do this - it's not like he was in any way suffering or lonely or desperate for money or attention or fame. He already had it made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I confess I'm surprised too at your reaction, Lyrhawn. Not that I think it's the 'wrong' reaction for you or something, just that it's not what I would've predicted had I been asked.
It really does-and this is about the broader American stance towards whistleblowers, not you personally, Lyrhawn-seem to feed into the attitude we take towards those who can be called 'traitor'. That's always been the stance of government-under any administration or Congress, the initial response must always be hostile unless it wants more whistleblowers-but I'm not so sure it was always the stance of the media which has allowed itself to be neutered.
This is the only way the broader American public was ever going to be informed of these sorts of programs-to say nothing of the rest of the world that, you know, we routinely and massively spy on thanks to our major tie-ins to the Internet and mass media. This is in fact just about the only way we ever find out about these sorts of stories-if someone is a 'traitor' and reveals them. I'm baffled as to why it's not enough for them to do that not just not for money but actually losing a pretty rad life, but they must also deny considering themselves a hero and in the correct tone of voice and body language, else they get labeled smug (and again, this is about the broader outlook on Snowden). I think much of it is connected to how much we've really digested the whole 'government does stuff for your protection, not just that you don't need to know about, but shouldn't ask about'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
He has no way of using the evidence he's compiled to prove he was right to leak it in the first place. It would be seized and deemed inadmissible in the interest of national security.
He has indicated he has more information to release, and will send it to journalists when he is done vetting it so that we can all make our own decisions.
It would be like the guy the Pentagon Papers merely stating he had such papers and will release them when has had a chance to review them, rather than just leaking them wholesale and letting the media disseminate it and sway public opinion.
Were I Snowden, there's no way I'd "honorably" come back to the US and try to get a fair trial.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Also, because torture.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think he's a traitor, though I'm a little iffy on revealing the US hacking stuff. Maybe that can be parlayed into an international conversation on hacking the way we talk about arms control though, which would be a welcome outcome.
I also don't really get the surprise from people. Snowden released details on a program we ALL should have known existed, and certainly everyone in government should have known.
But I don't think he's a villain, and I'm half amused and half outraged at Obama's reaction. If a Chinese whistleblower did the same thing and ran to the United States, we'd shelter him in the lap of luxury and never give him back, but we're trying to play morally superior when the shoe is on the other foot? Please.
I think there's a sliding scale of heroism. Would it be more heroic to come home and risk his freedom to make this a major issue in a court? Yes it would. Do I think he is morally obligated to do so? No, not any more than any of us are morally obligated every day to "do the right thing," which many of us frequently ignore.
Is it still heroic to totally give up his life in the US to do what he did? Yes, as I've said further up in this thread, it is. I don't know him personally, so I can only base my opinions on his interviews and what not, but there's just something about his attitude that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's just that he's super awkward and not used to all this, I don't know. I don't think it makes him a traitor, and I don't think he was wrong to leak what he did, but I'm not breaking out the plaster for his statue yet.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think if he was smooth and confident and relaxed and totally used to it, it would rub me the wrong way. His behavior is pretty much exactly what I would expect.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Only a fool in his position would came back to the US. I'm deeply surprised anyone would suggest it. There aren't enough people on his side to force a pardon...or to put it another way, there are enough people who hate him (and hate anyone like him) to ensure a lack of pardon. Force a pardon? Please.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Only a fool in his position would came back to the US. I'm deeply surprised anyone would suggest it. There aren't enough people on his side to force a pardon...or to put it another way, there are enough people who hate him (and hate anyone like him) to ensure a lack of pardon. Force a pardon? Please.
Maybe but I don't know, I have seen a couple of polls that show somewhere around 45% consider him a hero and around 42% traitor. Not great but not terrible either.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Salazar
Is it your belief that the United States now tortures people for revenge?
If you believe that, do you think the US could get away with disappearing him? Because once they've done that to him, they couldn't allow him to talk. I think he's a little too famous, and has far too many transparency groups looking out for him, for that to work.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I agree but then there is the case of Gary Webb. Yes it probably was suicide in his case but two gunshot wounds to the head is very suspicious, though possible with suicide.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Manning was/is being tortured, so why wouldn't they torture Snowden? Its extremely likely.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)