Still think Edward Snowden is a hero? (1 Viewer)

John Brennan, CIA director, claimed "unauthorised disclosures" on how the US security services operated, such as Snowden's infamous leaks have led to their snooping techniques being hampered.

He said it was now "much more difficult" to track down terrorists and work out what they are planning and when and where because of curbs introduced on surveillance in the wake of Snowden's exposures.

Mr Brennan said the Paris attacks would have needed weeks or months of planning, but none of this had been picked up by French or other allied spies.

Click to expand...

It has previously been reported that ISIS IT experts studied Snowden's leaks to help avoid detection to develop encrypted channels of communication.

Mr Brennan said: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

Click to expand...

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

1. Backdoors Won’t Combat Home-Brewed Encryption.
Forcing US companies and makers of encryption software to install backdoors and hand over encryption keys to the government would not solve the problem of terrorist suspects using products that are made in countries not controlled by US laws.

“There’s no way of preventing a terrorist from installing a Russian [encryption] app or a Brasilian app,” notes Nate Cardozo, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The US or UK government could mandate [backdoors], but Open Whisper Systems is not going to put in a backdoor in their product period and neither is PGP. So as soon as a terrorist is sophisticated enough to know how to install that, any backdoor is going to be defeated.”

Such backdoors also will be useless if terrorist suspects create their own encryption apps. According to the security firm Recorded Future, after the Snowden leaks, its analysts “observed an increased pace of innovation, specifically new competing jihadist platforms and three major new encryption tools from three different organizations—GIMF, Al-Fajr Technical Committee, and ISIS.” Encryption backdoors and keys also don’t help when terrorists stop using digital communications entirely. A 2011 AP story indicated that al-Qaida had long ago ditched cell phones and internet-connected computers in favor of walkie talkies and couriers.

News reports about the Paris attacks have indicated that some of the perpetrators lived in the same town in Belgium—which would have made it very easy to coordinate their attack in person, without the need for digital communication.

2. Other Ways to Get Information. The arguments for backdoors and forced decryption often fail to note the many other methods law enforcement and intelligence agencies can use to get the information they need. To bypass and undermine encryption, intelligence agencies can hack the computers and mobile phones of known targets to either obtain their private encryption keys or obtain email and text communications before they’re encrypted and after they’re decrypted on the target’s computer.

In the case of seized devices that are locked with a password or encryption key, these devices have a number of security holes that give authorities different options for gaining access, as WIRED previously reported. A story this week pointed to vulnerabilities in BitLocker that would make it fairly easy to bypass the Windows encryption tool. And the leaks of Edward Snowden show that the NSA and British intelligence agencies have a constantly evolving set of tools and methods for obtaining information from hard-to-reach systems.

“We’re still living in an absolute Golden Age of surveillance,” says Cardozo. “And there is always a way of getting the data that is needed for intelligence purposes.”

3. Encryption Doesn’t Obscure Metadata. Encryption doesn’t prevent surveillance agencies from intercepting metadata and knowing who is communicating with whom. Metadata can reveal phone numbers and IP addresses that are communicating with one another, the date and time of communication and even in some cases the location of the people communicating. Such data can be scooped up in mass quantities through signals intelligence or by tapping undersea cables. Metadata can be extremely powerful in establishing connections, identities and locating people.

“[CIA] Director Brennan gleefully told us earlier this year that they kill people based on metadata,” Cardozo says. “Metadata is enough for them to target drone strikes. And that’s pretty much the most serious thing we could possibly do with surveillance.”

Some metadata is encrypted—for example, the IP addresses of people who use Tor. But recent stories have shown that this protection is not foolproof. Authorities have exploited vulnerabilities in Tor to identify and locate suspects.

“Tor can make the ‘where’ a little more difficult, but doesn’t make it impossible [to locate someone],” Cardozo says. “And Tor is a lot harder [for suspects]to use than your average encrypted messaging tool.”

4. Backdoors Make Everyone Vulnerable. As security experts have long pointed out, backdoors and encryption keys held by a service provider or law enforcement agencies don’t just make terrorists and criminals open to surveillance from Western authorities with authorization—they make everyone vulnerable to the same type of surveillance from unauthorized entities, such as everyday hackers and spy agencies from Russia, China, and other countries. This means federal lawmakers on Capitol Hill and other government workers who use commercial encryption would be vulnerable as well.

The National Security Council, in a draft paper about encryption backdoors obtained by the Post earlier this year, noted the societal tradeoffs in forcing companies to install backdoors in their products. “Overall, the benefits to privacy, civil liberties and cybersecurity gained from encryption outweigh the broader risks that would have been created by weakening encryption,” the paper stated.

If all of these aren’t reason enough to question the attacks on encryption, there is another reason. Over and over again, analysis of terrorist attacks after the fact has shown that the problem in tracking the perpetrators in advance was usually not that authorities didn’t have the technical means to identify suspects and monitor their communications. Often the problem was that they had failed to focus on the right individuals or share information in a timely manner with the proper intelligence partners. Turkish authorities have already revealed that they had contacted French authorities twice to warn them about one of the attackers, but that French authorities never got back to them until after the massacre in Paris on Friday.

Officials in France indicated that they had thwarted at least six other attack plots in recent months, but that the sheer number of suspects makes it difficult to track everyone. French intelligence maintains a database of suspected individuals that currently has more than 11,000 names on it, but tracking individuals and analyzing data in a timely manner to uncover who poses the greatest threat is more than the security services can manage, experts there have said. It’s a familiar refrain that seems to come up after every terrorist attack.

“If Snowden has taught us anything, it’s that the intel agencies are drowning in data,” Cardozo says. “They have this ‘collect it all mentality’ and that has led to a ridiculous amount of data in their possession. It’s not about having enough data; it’s a matter of not knowing what to do with the data they already have. That’s been true since before 9/11, and it’s even more true now.”

Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:

Well?

John Brennan, CIA director, claimed "unauthorised disclosures" on how the US security services operated, such as Snowden's infamous leaks have led to their snooping techniques being hampered.

He said it was now "much more difficult" to track down terrorists and work out what they are planning and when and where because of curbs introduced on surveillance in the wake of Snowden's exposures.

Mr Brennan said the Paris attacks would have needed weeks or months of planning, but none of this had been picked up by French or other allied spies.

Click to expand...

It has previously been reported that ISIS IT experts studied Snowden's leaks to help avoid detection to develop encrypted channels of communication.

Mr Brennan said: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Otis said:

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

What liberty and freedom am I giving away here? So the government wants to listen in on my FaceTime with my kids? K. They wanna see the receipt from my trip to Lowe's? OMG MY FREEDOM

I'll never get that sentiment. I guess if you're doing stuff that's illegal and you won't want them to find out, maybe it's an issue. My life isn't that exciting.

Is this more a "slippery slope" concern? Like today they're looking at your Home Depot shopping list, and tomorrow they're not letting you go to Home Depot anymore!

?

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

The fact that a lawyer would parrot the old " if you aren't doing anything wrong who cares" claptrap is really sad. I would expect you to know better. If I have to explain what you're losing its already gone. Enjoy the despotic future you're rooting for.

Click to expand...

Mass Surveillance Isn’t the Answer to Fighting Terrorism


It’s a wretched yet predictable ritual after each new terrorist attack: Certain politicians and government officials waste no time exploiting the tragedy for their own ends. The remarks on Monday by John Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took that to a new and disgraceful low.
Speaking less than three days after coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed 129 and injured hundreds more, Mr. Brennan complained about “a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists.”

What he calls “hand-wringing” was the sustained national outrage following the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, that the agency was using provisions of the Patriot Act to secretly collect information on millions of Americans’ phone records. In June, President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act, which ends bulk collection of domestic phone data by the government (but not the collection of other data, like emails and the content of Americans’ international phone calls) and requires the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make its most significant rulings available to the public.

These reforms are only a modest improvement on the Patriot Act, but the intelligence community saw them as a grave impediment to antiterror efforts. In his comments Monday, Mr. Brennan called the attacks in Paris a “wake-up call,” and claimed that recent “policy and legal” actions “make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging.”

It is hard to believe anything Mr. Brennan says. Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did. In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had. And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data. Even putting this lack of credibility aside, it’s not clear what extra powers Mr. Brennan is seeking.

Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium, where several of the attackers lived only hundreds of yards from the main police station, in a neighborhood known as a haven for extremists. As one French counterterrorism expert and former defense official said, this shows that “our intelligence is actually pretty good, but our ability to act on it is limited by the sheer numbers.” In other words, the problem in this case was not a lack of data, but a failure to act on information authorities already had.

In fact, indiscriminate bulk data sweeps have not been useful. In the more than two years since the N.S.A.’s data collection programs became known to the public, the intelligence community has failed to show that the phone program has thwarted a terrorist attack. Yet for years intelligence officials and members of Congress repeatedly misled the public by claiming that it was effective.

The intelligence agencies’ inability to tell the truth about surveillance practices is just one part of the problem. The bigger issue is their willingness to circumvent the laws, however they are written. The Snowden revelations laid bare how easy it is to abuse national-security powers, which are vaguely defined and generally exercised in secret.

Listening to Mr. Brennan and other officials, like James Comey, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one might believe that the government has been rendered helpless to defend Americans against the threat of future terror attacks.

Mr. Comey, for example, has said technology companies like Apple and Google should make it possible for law enforcement to decode encrypted messages the companies’ customers send and receive. But requiring that companies build such back doors into their devices and software could make those systems much more vulnerable to hacking by criminals and spies. Technology experts say that government could just as easily establish links between suspects, without the use of back doors, by examining who they call or message, how often and for how long.

In truth, intelligence authorities are still able to do most of what they did before — only now with a little more oversight by the courts and the public. There is no dispute that they and law enforcement agencies should have the necessary powers to detect and stop attacks before they happen. But that does not mean unquestioning acceptance of ineffective and very likely unconstitutional tactics that reduce civil liberties without making the public safer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

The fact that a lawyer would parrot the old " if you aren't doing anything wrong who cares" claptrap is really sad. I would expect you to know better. If I have to explain what you're losing its already gone. Enjoy the despotic future you're rooting for.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I view Snowden much like Daniel Ellsberg (the guy who gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times). Not exactly a hero but what he did had a positive result. I don't have a problem with what the NSA is doing- in theory. In practice, things may get thorny which is why we need proper oversight.

But I DO have a problem with the fact that the NSA was keeping it all a secret until Snowden came along. The public has the right to know the general outlines of what they're doing, especially since it touches on 4th Amendment issues.

But Snowden should have submitted himself to American justice just as Ellsberg did. I doubt he would have seen any jail time. His actions and comments since, and is apparent collaboration with the Russians now, damage his credibility IMO.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

My phone sex life makes Arizona Ron look like Eminence.

I know they are listening to every word.

Click to expand...

Poke_4_Life said:

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite, What liberty or freedoms is O giving up by the NSA snooping on him? What specific liberties or freedoms is this taking away?

Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I view Snowden much like Daniel Ellsberg (the guy who gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times). Not exactly a hero but what he did had a positive result. I don't have a problem with what the NSA is doing- in theory. In practice, things may get thorny which is why we need proper oversight.

But I DO have a problem with the fact that the NSA was keeping it all a secret until Snowden came along. The public has the right to know the general outlines of what they're doing, especially since it touches on 4th Amendment issues.

But Snowden should have submitted himself to American justice just as Ellsberg did. I doubt he would have seen any jail time. His actions and comments since, and is apparent collaboration with the Russians now, damage his credibility IMO.

Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:

Well?

John Brennan, CIA director, claimed "unauthorised disclosures" on how the US security services operated, such as Snowden's infamous leaks have led to their snooping techniques being hampered.

He said it was now "much more difficult" to track down terrorists and work out what they are planning and when and where because of curbs introduced on surveillance in the wake of Snowden's exposures.

Mr Brennan said the Paris attacks would have needed weeks or months of planning, but none of this had been picked up by French or other allied spies.

Click to expand...

It has previously been reported that ISIS IT experts studied Snowden's leaks to help avoid detection to develop encrypted channels of communication.

Mr Brennan said: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Signs Point to Unencrypted Communications Between Terror SuspectsDan Froomkin

Nov. 18 2015, 11:32 a.m.

In the wake of the Paris attack, intelligence officials and sympathizers upset by the Edward Snowden leaks and the spread of encrypted communications have tried to blame Snowden for the terrorists’ ability to keep their plans secret from law enforcement.

Yet news emerging from Paris — as well as evidence from a Belgian ISIS raid in January — suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not encrypted.

European media outlets are reporting that the location of a raid conducted on a suspected safe house Wednesday morning was extracted from a cellphone, apparently belonging to one of the attackers, found in the trash outside the Bataclan concert hall massacre. Le Monde reported that investigators were able to access the data on the phone, including a detailed map of the concert hall and an SMS messaging saying “we’re off; we’re starting.” Police were also able to trace the phone’s movements.

The Telegraph reported that “eyewitness accounts and surveillance of mobile telephone traffic” suggested that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the suspected strategist of both the Paris attack and one that was foiled in Belgium, was staying at the safe house.

Details about the major ISIS terror plot averted 10 months ago in Belgium also indicate that while Abaaoud previously attempted to avoid government surveillance, he did not use encryption.

A prescient bulletin sent out in May by the Department of Homeland Security assessed “that the plot disrupted by Belgian authorities in January 2015 is the first instance in which a large group of terrorists possibly operating under ISIL direction has been discovered and may indicate the group has developed the capability to launch more complex operations in the West.”

Abaaoud’s planned operation in Belgium was blown when authorities, who had been closely surveilling his three accomplices, stormed their safe house in the city of Verviers after determining that they were planning a major attack — very much like the one that took place in Paris on Friday. A pitched firefight between Belgian commandos and the ISIS veterans firing Kalashnikov rifles and lobbing grenades ended with two suspects dead and a third captured.

Belgian investigators concluded that Abaaoud directed the foiled operation there by cellphone from Greece — and that despite his attempts to avoid surveillance, his communications were in fact intercepted. Just a few days after the raid, Belgian news website RTL Info ran a whole article titled “What the Terrorist Suspects under Surveillance Were Saying.” It described surveillance over several months, through wiretaps and listening devices placed in the suspects’ car and their apartment.

Some of the telephone conversations that were intercepted used code or obscure Morroccan dialects. Ironically, the suspects were overheard discussing the need to frequently swap out their cellphones.

Abaaoud has a brilliant history of avoiding capture — in fact, in an interview with ISIS’ Dabiq magazine he bragged that his “name and picture were all over the news yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations against them, and leave safely when doing so became necessary.”

But when it comes to defeating electronic surveillance, there’s good reason to question his tradecraft. After all, he wore a video camera on his head (what is that, a GoPro 3?) And he lost a cellphone in Syria that was full of unencrypted pictures and videos.

A journalist, Etienne Huver, obtained the phone from sources in a Syrian refugee camp last year. His report for RTBF Belgian television, about the contents of the phone of the most wanted man in Europe included footage of Abaaoud clowning around, posing with a rifle, and driving a car dragging the corpses of Free Syrian Army fighters.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is an illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

beer 30 said:

Otis said:

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

Click to expand...

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Click to expand...

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is an illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

BigSteelThrill said:

If you continue to lie about something (NSA actions on its own US citizens), you will eventually get exposed for it. This is how its supposed to work.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

I refuse to call him a hero because a hero wouldn't have ran away and allowed China, Russia, probably others access to what he knew. Should have stayed here and fought the government.

Click to expand...

Foosball God said:

The right you are giving up is an unreasonable search of something that should be a private exchange. Snowden isn't a hero IMO, but I'm also glad the NSA got outed for what they were doing.

If you really feel like this is a matter of National Security and that people should acquiesce to it, then at least do it out in the open and not skulk in the dark and deny your're doing it.

Click to expand...

Doctor Detroit said:

Like I've said from day one.

#### THAT GUY !!!!!!​

Click to expand...

whoknew said:

Tom Servo said:

Well?

John Brennan, CIA director, claimed "unauthorised disclosures" on how the US security services operated, such as Snowden's infamous leaks have led to their snooping techniques being hampered.

He said it was now "much more difficult" to track down terrorists and work out what they are planning and when and where because of curbs introduced on surveillance in the wake of Snowden's exposures.

Mr Brennan said the Paris attacks would have needed weeks or months of planning, but none of this had been picked up by French or other allied spies.

Click to expand...

It has previously been reported that ISIS IT experts studied Snowden's leaks to help avoid detection to develop encrypted channels of communication.

Mr Brennan said: “In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorised disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why would you believe anything the CIA director says?

Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:

timschochet said:

I view Snowden much like Daniel Ellsberg (the guy who gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times). Not exactly a hero but what he did had a positive result. I don't have a problem with what the NSA is doing- in theory. In practice, things may get thorny which is why we need proper oversight.

But I DO have a problem with the fact that the NSA was keeping it all a secret until Snowden came along. The public has the right to know the general outlines of what they're doing, especially since it touches on 4th Amendment issues.

But Snowden should have submitted himself to American justice just as Ellsberg did. I doubt he would have seen any jail time. His actions and comments since, and is apparent collaboration with the Russians now, damage his credibility IMO.

Click to expand...

If he'd have done that, I'd be fine. The fact that took off like the chicken #### he is damages his credibility. Plus, he didn't flee to a democratic nation, he fled to Russia, one of the more autocratic regimes on the planet. He's all about freedom, but runs and hides behind Putin's apron like a little #####.

Traitor.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

I refuse to call him a hero because a hero wouldn't have ran away and allowed China, Russia, probably others access to what he knew. Should have stayed here and fought the government.

Click to expand...

roadkill1292 said:

Calling someone a "privacy nerd" because he doesn't think the government should be engaged in constant surveillance of its citizens is really creepy.

Which candidate is running on the "Keeping Otis Safe" platform?

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

#### the govt, we didn't grant them the right to spy on us. I'm glad snowden leaked

Click to expand...

Doctor Detroit said:

tommyboy said:

#### the govt, we didn't grant them the right to spy on us. I'm glad snowden leaked

Click to expand...

Same guy who is a paranoid delusional about refugees lighting the American countryside on fire doesn't like us spying on possible terrorists domestically. Well that is just so cute.

Then when something happens Tommyboy is the first one in the thread blasting the government for not having intelligence of possible attacks. You know, because he's a ####### hypocrite and all.

Click to expand...

Tom Servo said:

Well?

John Brennan, CIA director, claimed "unauthorised disclosures" on how the US security services operated, such as Snowden's infamous leaks have led to their snooping techniques being hampered.

He said it was now "much more difficult" to track down terrorists and work out what they are planning and when and where because of curbs introduced on surveillance in the wake of Snowden's exposures.

Mr Brennan said the Paris attacks would have needed weeks or months of planning, but none of this had been picked up by French or other allied spies.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

roadkill1292 said:

Calling someone a "privacy nerd" because he doesn't think the government should be engaged in constant surveillance of its citizens is really creepy.

Which candidate is running on the "Keeping Otis Safe" platform?

Click to expand...