What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Edward Snowden poll (5/20/14): Hero or Traitor? (1 Viewer)

Edward Snowden

  • Hero

    Votes: 165 59.6%
  • Traitor

    Votes: 112 40.4%

  • Total voters
    277
At family gatherings, politics are always a big topic of discussion because I have both liberals and conservatives in my family- I'm sure most of you do. Yet this subject has never come up once. So on Mothers Day I decided to raise it to see what the response was. From both liberals and conservatives, the response was the same: indifference coupled with a general approval of what the NSA is doing and no concern about privacy issues. And a disdain of Snowden. Of course this is all anecdotal.

 
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.

 
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
:lmao:
:lmao: :lmao:

 
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.

 
At family gatherings, politics are always a big topic of discussion because I have both liberals and conservatives in my family- I'm sure most of you do. Yet this subject has never come up once. So on Mothers Day I decided to raise it to see what the response was. From both liberals and conservatives, the response was the same: indifference coupled with a general approval of what the NSA is doing and no concern about privacy issues. And a disdain of Snowden. Of course this is all anecdotal.
For a guy who supposedly doesn't believe in anecdotal evidence, you sure do use it a lot to support your positions. However, even if we assumed most people in the U.S. don't care about what the NSA is doing, does that make it right? Popular opinion shouldn't be a determining factor on issues that deal with the ideals the country was founded on.

 
Slapdash said:
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
:lmao:
:lmao: :lmao:
I dunno Slapdash, if Joe T was agreeing with me this much, I'd feel kind of slimy. It would force me to reconsider my entire line of thinking.
 
At family gatherings, politics are always a big topic of discussion because I have both liberals and conservatives in my family- I'm sure most of you do. Yet this subject has never come up once. So on Mothers Day I decided to raise it to see what the response was. From both liberals and conservatives, the response was the same: indifference coupled with a general approval of what the NSA is doing and no concern about privacy issues. And a disdain of Snowden. Of course this is all anecdotal.
For a guy who supposedly doesn't believe in anecdotal evidence, you sure do use it a lot to support your positions. However, even if we assumed most people in the U.S. don't care about what the NSA is doing, does that make it right? Popular opinion shouldn't be a determining factor on issues that deal with the ideals the country was founded on.
Actually that isn't my position. I just found it interesting. You're correct that indifference doesn't justify anything.
 
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I would too, given the accusations of "paranoia" around here.
I have followed this story pretty closely and I'm waiting for this as well.

Been tons of speculation without a doubt and a ton of hyperbole(cue Mike Rogers and a host of others).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I've read articles that claim this, such as this one from a google search: here and here.

The names of the programs are also listed on the Snowden wiki page, which has a list of sitations/sources.

Whether it is true or not is unknown to me, but it is reported by some. Like I said before, I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not.

 
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I would too, given the accusations of "paranoia" around here.
I have followed this story pretty closely and I'm waiting for this as well.

Been tons of speculation without a doubt and a ton of hyperbole(cue Mike Rogers and a host of others).
I will agree that there have been tons of speculation on all this. I sincerely hope that nothing very damaging to our spy operations has been leaked. I can't say that it doesn't worry me though.

 
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I've read articles that claim this, such as this one from a google search: here and here.

The names of the programs are also listed on the Snowden wiki page, which has a list of sitations/sources.

Whether it is true or not is unknown to me, but it is reported by some. Like I said before, I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not.
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I've read articles that claim this, such as this one from a google search: here and here.

The names of the programs are also listed on the Snowden wiki page, which has a list of sitations/sources.

Whether it is true or not is unknown to me, but it is reported by some. Like I said before, I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not.
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
If anyone had suggested the size and scope if what the NSA was doing prior to Snowden they would have been labeled as paranoid. In fact, if they suggested even half of it was going on I suspect they would have been labeled as paranoid. I distrust the government a great deal and even I would have scoffed at the magnitude of what's been revealed.

It takes a lot of gall at this point to start calling people paranoid for suggesting the idea that the guy that stole the information to set this all in motion, is currently residing in Russia, engages in staged PR stunts with Russian leadership, and has spoken to Chinese and Russian news sources about how he feels and what he knows has perhaps released more information to foreign entities that he is letting on. That seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw. It's certainly not provable at this point, but it's definitely not paranoia.

 
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
Do you believe the Chinese government has not had access to any of the information he released to the Chinese reporters?

 
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
Do you believe the Chinese government has not had access to any of the information he released to the Chinese reporters?
Why would Chinese reporters be privy to these dangerous secrets that their governments have and Snowden hasn't released to the press?

 
Slapdash said:
Jayrok said:
But like DD said, not all of these leaked documents were about a surveillance program. And they were leaked to foreign gov'ts like China and Russia. That is what I have a problem with.
Snowden disputes this. Do we have anything besides paranoid conjecture to suggest he is lying?
I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. It has been reported that he told the journalists that he also had access to the names of NSA agents and lists of covert operatives and operations. I can't know this for sure and don't claim to. Lists of programs were included in the information (it is reported) and some of those programs are used to pinpoint locations of known terrorists. They have assisted in drone strikes against terrorist targets in locations in afghanistan. This disclosure could give terrorists the resources to improve how they operate.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking computers in Hong Kong and mainland China for years. This has nothing to do with domestic surveillance against Americans.

If it comes out that all he did was reveal documents that illustrate how the US and British governments monitor Yahoo messenger and other webcam apps, then I will apologize and get more behind Snowden. I hope that is the case.
Reported where?
I read it on Tim's blog.
I'm serious though, would like to read these reports. So far I haven't heard much beyond accusations in this vein.
I've read articles that claim this, such as this one from a google search: here and here.

The names of the programs are also listed on the Snowden wiki page, which has a list of sitations/sources.

Whether it is true or not is unknown to me, but it is reported by some. Like I said before, I don't think anyone yet knows the full extent of information he released and no one can know for sure if he is telling the truth or not.
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
If anyone had suggested the size and scope if what the NSA was doing prior to Snowden they would have been labeled as paranoid. In fact, if they suggested even half of it was going on I suspect they would have been labeled as paranoid. I distrust the government a great deal and even I would have scoffed at the magnitude of what's been revealed.

It takes a lot of gall at this point to start calling people paranoid for suggesting the idea that the guy that stole the information to set this all in motion, is currently residing in Russia, engages in staged PR stunts with Russian leadership, and has spoken to Chinese and Russian news sources about how he feels and what he knows has perhaps released more information to foreign entities that he is letting on. That seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw. It's certainly not provable at this point, but it's definitely not paranoia.
In fact, we are still being called paranoid and scoffed at for believing the things which have been revealed.

I don't think its pretty reasonable to assume that he is giving America destroying secrets directly to those governments, contrary to his word and any evidence. Despite the character assassination attempts (right out of the playbook) of Snowden, I don't see what would cause us to doubt his word on it. Pretty clear that the unnamed sources in the links Jayrod posted are paranoid about what they fear he possibly could have had. That's all there is: speculation.

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

Take 5 minutes away from posting and watch starting at about the 102:30 mark. Both reporters and Keller himself interviewed. WH got the times to sit on the story and they didn't end up publishing until a year later, after the election. That's why Snowden chose not to go to the times specifically (mentioned elsewhere in the piece). The Times was urged from the highest levels that it was a matter of national security and publishing a story about The Program would be extremely dangerous. They only published after one of the NYT reporters decided he was releasing the information on his own in a book.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HERO

and it's not even close. He deserves a Nobel Peace prize. I'll bet the 64 people who voted traitor don't even kbnow who Thomas Drake is. or the other 5 or so NSA directors who retired en masse in 2006 because of "the program". For that Matter I was shocked to learn that Attorney General Aschcroft had the stones he did. Anyone who doesnt have two hours to watch the whole program on PBS shoudl at least hear this ####### crazy story of how they LITERALLY almost killed Ascroft by ambushing him in his hospital bed to sign the order to reauthorize the ILLEGAL program. Ultimately they just had Bush's lawyer Alberto Gonzales to sign it instead (which was also illegal under teh patriot act) and then Bush appointed that patsy to the next AG largely because he was willing to authorize this BS.

anyone reading this needs to watch this immediately

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

I would appoint Edward Snowden to direct the NSA (or at least let him run the current version of the program, probably much like thinthread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread. He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At family gatherings, politics are always a big topic of discussion because I have both liberals and conservatives in my family- I'm sure most of you do. Yet this subject has never come up once. So on Mothers Day I decided to raise it to see what the response was. From both liberals and conservatives, the response was the same: indifference coupled with a general approval of what the NSA is doing and no concern about privacy issues. And a disdain of Snowden. Of course this is all anecdotal.
and I thought my family gathering were crazy.

 
Norman Paperman said:
Serious question - what are you worried about being disclosed?

I don't feel threatened by any other nation - militarily. So, I am not worried about any other country - including Russia or China knowing more about our military - I think it is of far more limited use than perhaps others think - given that I do not foresee a large-scale military conflict in the next 5 years, after which most of the information known today would be outdated.
Indepth plans on how US intelligence agencies operate in the new world of cyber-warfare.

That's the thing.. no one can match the US in a straight military campaign. I am also not worried about another country invading the USA. Russia and China already know about our military, where we are stationed, and our tactics in combat. That is a non-issue as we know of theirs too. What they don't know and what they strive to learn is how our country will/can conduct cyber combat operations.

No, there probably won't be a large-scale military conflict in the coming years. It is about information warfare. That is the future of warfare. You don't have to have boots on the ground to inflict great damage to another nation anymore. Spies have been around since there have been conflicts. If you hinder how they perform operations you could weaken their host nation's ability to conduct military operations whether it's combat, recon, or even humanitarian.

If the US scrapped all of its surveillance operations, as Snowden and perhaps you, want.. how do we compete on a global scale with other powers such as Russia and China in terms of cyber awareness? Do you suppose they will also fall in line and get rid of all of their surveillance programs? I don't have a problem with Snowden's intent and I don't have reason to question his heart in the matter. But I think he went too far and is extremely naive in thinking this will result in governments of the world scrapping all spy operations.
Snowden was a sub-contractor. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of coders/hackers/engineers here in the US that can still combat cyber-terrorists here. Or create more worms that the NSA can use, like they did here domestically.

 
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
Do you believe the Chinese government has not had access to any of the information he released to the Chinese reporters?
Why would Chinese reporters be privy to these dangerous secrets that their governments have and Snowden hasn't released to the press?
So Snowden only gave information to Glenn Greenwald, who hasn't shared it with anyone else? I thought he gave some to the Hong Kong newspaper.

From last summer in HK: link

In his interview with the Post, Snowden divulged information that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and the mainland.

"I did not release them earlier because I don't want to simply dump huge amounts of documents without regard to their content," he said.

"I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists." Asked if he specifically went to Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence of surveillance, he replied: "Correct on Booz."

The documents he divulged to the Post were obtained at Booz Allen Hamilton in April, he said. He intends to leak more of those documents later.

"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published."

His intent was to release documents to reporters in many countries. For China, he divulged documents that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and the mainland. Would the Chinese intelligence agency not be interested in viewing these documents?

What does information about NSA hacking into other countries have to do with domestic US infringements on privacy? Nevermind, I digress.

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.

 
At family gatherings, politics are always a big topic of discussion because I have both liberals and conservatives in my family- I'm sure most of you do. Yet this subject has never come up once. So on Mothers Day I decided to raise it to see what the response was. From both liberals and conservatives, the response was the same: indifference coupled with a general approval of what the NSA is doing and no concern about privacy issues. And a disdain of Snowden. Of course this is all anecdotal.
Who gives a rat's behind?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.

 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/nsa-reform-falters-as-house-passes-gutted-usa-freedom-act/

The House passed legislation Thursday—ironically called the USA Freedom Act—that continues to allow the National Security Agency the ability to sift through the phone metadata of every phone call made to and from the United States.

The so-called "reform" measure comes a year after the Guardian revealed the snooping program with documents supplied by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Civil rights advocates withdrew their support for the package, H.R.3361, after the Obama administration pressured the Republican leadership to water it down.

"The ban on bulk collection was deliberately watered down to be ambiguous and exploitable," said Harley Geiger, an attorney with the Center for Democracy & Technology. "We withdrew support for USA Freedom when the bill morphed into a codification of large-scale, untargeted collection of data about Americans with no connection to a crime or terrorism."

The White House doesn't see it that way. "The bill ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation, while further ensuring that individuals’ privacy is appropriately protected when these authorities are employed," the White House said.

The measure passed 303 to 121 in the House. The administration urged the Senate to follow suit. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, suggested that the legislation faces a tougher sell in the Senate.

"I was disappointed that the legislation passed today does not include some of the meaningful reforms contained in the original USA Freedom Act," he said. "I will continue to push for these important reforms when the Senate Judiciary Committee considers the USA Freedom Act next month."

Under the legislation passed Thursday, instead of the NSA collecting and housing the metadata from every phone call made to and from the United States, that data will remain in the hands of the telecoms. Previously, there were no laws barring the NSA from searching the data carte blanche, although the agency promised it would only do so if it had a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" against a terrorism target.

The USA Freedom Act, however, demands that the NSA get approval for a search from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before demanding that the telecoms hand over metadata. However, no "probable-cause" Fourth Amendment standard is required to access the database.

"The result is a bill that will actually not end bulk collection, regrettably," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California who voted against the bill.

Under the act, a database search inquiry is allowed if it is "a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device." Until Tuesday, an allowable search under the USA Freedom Act was defined as "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account."

That nuanced change, lobbied for by the Obama administration at the 11th hour, was among the biggest reasons civil rights groups and scholars objected to the measure. They said the new language was vague and perhaps would allow the NSA to ensnare the metadata of broad swaths of innocent people in violation of their constitutional rights.

“In particular, while the previous bill would have required any request for records to be tied to a clearly defined set of ‘specific selection terms,’ the bill that just passed leaves the definition of 'specific selection terms' open. This could allow for an overly broad and creative interpretation, which is something we've certainly seen from the executive branch and the FISA Court before," said Elizabeth Goitein, a co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neither of these even make the case he gave anything to China or Russia. There is unnamed speculation that he has additional hidden secrets taken. One makes the distinction that he only should have released information on NSA programs that are domestic only, which I think is impractical. Not much there.

I do like that one of the articles I clicked through to was just talking about spies being "freaked out" by the thought that he could have stuff. Paranoid speculation, nothing more.
Do you believe the Chinese government has not had access to any of the information he released to the Chinese reporters?
Why would Chinese reporters be privy to these dangerous secrets that their governments have and Snowden hasn't released to the press?
So Snowden only gave information to Glenn Greenwald, who hasn't shared it with anyone else? I thought he gave some to the Hong Kong newspaper.

From last summer in HK: link

In his interview with the Post, Snowden divulged information that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and the mainland.

"I did not release them earlier because I don't want to simply dump huge amounts of documents without regard to their content," he said.

"I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists." Asked if he specifically went to Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence of surveillance, he replied: "Correct on Booz."

The documents he divulged to the Post were obtained at Booz Allen Hamilton in April, he said. He intends to leak more of those documents later.

"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published."

His intent was to release documents to reporters in many countries. For China, he divulged documents that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and the mainland. Would the Chinese intelligence agency not be interested in viewing these documents?

What does information about NSA hacking into other countries have to do with domestic US infringements on privacy? Nevermind, I digress.
All you are doing is talking about things he has released publicly. I'm not sure how this has any bearing on your claims that he has more secret documents he is sharing with the Chinese and Russian governments.

As to your second question: it has everything to do with US infringements if the methods are globally applied. Particularly when the government's response to these releases is to claim they're really targeted at foreigners. But, if the NSA is putting backdoors in software to control American computers, then it follows directly that they can do just the same to Chinese computers. These programs are global so these assumptions are not heroic.

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.

 
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/china-responds-to-nsa-tampering-with-network-gear-with-vetting-process/

The US government used security concerns to essentially drive Chinese companies out of the American networking marketplace. Now China is doing the same thing, as the Chinese government is planning to require all products sold in the country to pass a “cyber security vetting process,” the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency reported.

Jiang Jun, a spokesman for the State Internet Information Office, told Xinhua that the move was to counter large-scale spying, saying that the networks of Chinese government agencies, universities, businesses and telecommunications providers have “suffered extensive invasion and wiretapping,” the news service reported.

The measure is intended to prevent technology providers from “taking advantage of their products to illegally control, disrupt, or shut down their clients’ systems, or to gather, store, process, or use their client’s information,” according to a statement from the agency. IT products that do not pass the government’s vetting process will be banned in China.

The move is a direct response to both reports of NSA spying on Chinese networks and the US government’s recent charging of five People's Liberation Army soldiers with the hacking of US businesses. “For a long time, governments and enterprises of a few countries have gathered sensitive information on a large scale,” Jiang said,” taking advantage of their monopoly in the market and technological edge. They not only seriously undermine the interests of their clients but also threaten cyber security of other countries.”
From the first link in the article:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/congress-accuses-chinese-tech-giants-of-un-american-activities/

Huawei and ZTE are two giant Chinese tech companies frequently targeted by accusations of industrial espionage, intellectual property theft, and even providing backdoors for network attacks to the Chinese military. Now, the two are the focus of a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report issued today. The report finds that the two companies "cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems."

Huawei is a $32 billion networking and data center infrastructure company; ZTE provides both telecommunications infrastructure and cellular handsets. Both have been frequently accused of having close ties to the Chinese government and to the People's Liberation Army (China's military).

Those connections got Huawei banned from bidding on Australia's national broadband effort. Now, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are calling for the White House and the rest of Congress to take action. The committee wants to place broad-ranging restrictions on the activities of the companies because of the potential threat their hardware could pose if it was used for "cyber-espionage" or attacks on infrastructure. They're urging US telecommunications companies and other network providers to avoid the two companies and "seek other vendors for their projects."

For now, Huawei and ZTE have proposed a technical solution to the security questions concerning their hardware. In the United Kingdom, Huawei's hardware and software is independently tested by the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (and by technicians with government security clearances) before it is authorized for use in the national telecommunications infrastructure. The Select Committee's investigation did not delve into the security of any of ZTE's hardware or software products—"the expertise of the Committee does not lend itself to comprehensive reviews of particular pieces of equipment," as the report noted. But the Select Committee's report challenges that approach, saying that evaluating individual components would "provide a sense of security," but a false one. "The task of finding and eliminating every significant vulnerability from a complex product is monumental. If we also consider flaws intentionally inserted by a determined and clever insider, the task becomes virtually impossible."
 
Snowden says China and Russia have zero access to information Link

I hope he is right.

Glenn Greenwald says (also from last year) Snowden is still in possession of documents (While in Russia) that he hasn't leaked yet. Link

Snowden emerged from weeks of hiding in a Moscow airport Friday, and said he was willing to meet President Vladimir Putin's condition that he stop leaking U.S. secrets if it means Russia would give him asylum until he can move on to Latin America.



He must have a location in the cloud where he stored the documents. Perhaps the Russians can't encourage him to disclose that location. Greenwald also mentioned a sort of dead man's pact, which would allow several people to access the documents should anything happen to Snowden.

I wonder what else he has.

 
Ran across this today

A few tidbits I found interesting.

A top-secret Pentagon report to assess the damage to national security from the leak of classified National Security Agency documents by Edward Snowden concluded that “the scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities is staggering”.

The Guardian has obtained a copy of the Defense Intelligence Agency's classified damage assessment in response to a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) lawsuit filed against the Defense Department earlier this year. The heavily redacted 39-page report was prepared in December and is titled “DoD Information Review Task Force-2: Initial Assessment, Impacts Resulting from the Compromise of Classified Material by a Former NSA Contractor.”

But while the DIA report describes the damage to US intelligence capabilities as “grave”, the government still refuses to release any specific details to support this conclusion.
The DIA report has been cited numerous times by Rogers and Rusppersberger and other lawmakers who claimed Snowden’s leaks have put US personnel at risk.

In January, Rogers asserted that the report concluded that most of the documents Snowden took "concern vital operations of the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force".

"This report confirms my greatest fears — Snowden’s real acts of betrayal place America’s military men and women at greater risk. Snowden’s actions are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field," Rogers said in a statement at the time.

But details to back up Rogers' claims are not included in the declassified material released to the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/pentagon-report-snowden-leaks-national-security

So it's pretty much you have to believe what we're saying because we can't reveal the truth(whatever that may be).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

Take 5 minutes away from posting and watch starting at about the 102:30 mark. Both reporters and Keller himself interviewed. WH got the times to sit on the story and they didn't end up publishing until a year later, after the election. That's why Snowden chose not to go to the times specifically (mentioned elsewhere in the piece). The Times was urged from the highest levels that it was a matter of national security and publishing a story about The Program would be extremely dangerous. They only published after one of the NYT reporters decided he was releasing the information on his own in a book.
Wait. You expect him to stop typing for a few minutes and actually do some research? :lol:

Good luck!

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.
Please don't assume I want the government to be able to override security systems put in place, such as those employed by banking institutions and medical facilities and the network connections they reside on. I said sensitive information on the Internet and on computer systems. Personal identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers, medical records, bank transactions. If I encrypt the contents on my home PC, I do not want the gov't to be able to break that encryption and have access to my content. And if I converse with a friend or anyone else through hotmail or yahoo mail or footballguys, I realize it is being logged on some server somewhere. I am ok with that.

I want the intelligence agency to be able to track known terrorists. If they can gather information from yahoo, or facebook or some other social network, that could prevent terrorist activity, then I am ok with it.

Yes, I agree that making information available to the gov't also makes it available to any other party. That is how it is now. Serbian militant groups can use similar programs to spy on people through social media like facebook and yahoo. So can the Syrians. This leaked information contains the playbook of how our intel agency goes about this.

If or when made public this information will enable "any other party" to know exactly how the US plays the spy game. Like any other means of war, cyber-warfare is much about the race to arms. I don't want to give groups that would like to harm us the advantage of knowing how we operate. Sorry if that makes me seem unreasonable.

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

Take 5 minutes away from posting and watch starting at about the 102:30 mark. Both reporters and Keller himself interviewed. WH got the times to sit on the story and they didn't end up publishing until a year later, after the election. That's why Snowden chose not to go to the times specifically (mentioned elsewhere in the piece). The Times was urged from the highest levels that it was a matter of national security and publishing a story about The Program would be extremely dangerous. They only published after one of the NYT reporters decided he was releasing the information on his own in a book.
Wait. You expect him to stop typing for a few minutes and actually do some research? :lol:

Good luck!
I'm not surprised tim forgets the NYT and the whole W Iraq war thingy.

 
My personal use of the term "paranoid" is to describe attitudes like those of Politician Spock, who stated that what the NSA is currently doing is the biggest threat to freedom in history, and to people like the Commish, who is confident that if Edward Snowden returned to the USA, he would be assassinated. I think these sorts of viewpoints represent an extreme fear/distrust of our own government which rivals the militia gangs and the more radical NRA supporters.

I do not believe, however, that people who have reasonable concerns over what the NSA is doing (I am one of them) are paranoid.

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

Take 5 minutes away from posting and watch starting at about the 102:30 mark. Both reporters and Keller himself interviewed. WH got the times to sit on the story and they didn't end up publishing until a year later, after the election. That's why Snowden chose not to go to the times specifically (mentioned elsewhere in the piece). The Times was urged from the highest levels that it was a matter of national security and publishing a story about The Program would be extremely dangerous. They only published after one of the NYT reporters decided he was releasing the information on his own in a book.
Wait. You expect him to stop typing for a few minutes and actually do some research? :lol:

Good luck!
I'm not surprised tim forgets the NYT and the whole W Iraq war thingy.
What about it?

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.
Please don't assume I want the government to be able to override security systems put in place, such as those employed by banking institutions and medical facilities and the network connections they reside on. I said sensitive information on the Internet and on computer systems. Personal identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers, medical records, bank transactions. If I encrypt the contents on my home PC, I do not want the gov't to be able to break that encryption and have access to my content. And if I converse with a friend or anyone else through hotmail or yahoo mail or footballguys, I realize it is being logged on some server somewhere. I am ok with that.

I want the intelligence agency to be able to track known terrorists. If they can gather information from yahoo, or facebook or some other social network, that could prevent terrorist activity, then I am ok with it.

Yes, I agree that making information available to the gov't also makes it available to any other party. That is how it is now. Serbian militant groups can use similar programs to spy on people through social media like facebook and yahoo. So can the Syrians. This leaked information contains the playbook of how our intel agency goes about this.

If or when made public this information will enable "any other party" to know exactly how the US plays the spy game. Like any other means of war, cyber-warfare is much about the race to arms. I don't want to give groups that would like to harm us the advantage of knowing how we operate. Sorry if that makes me seem unreasonable.
According to Frontline, they already had architecture in place that would both keep the privacy of Americans while being able to sniff out any communication while still keeping it legal and constitutional, but Cheney an Co. decided to blow that up and go even deeper and more massive that those who created the original program thought illegal.

They don't need this much information. Unless they want to use it for different purposes, which I'm sure they are willing to do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My personal use of the term "paranoid" is to describe attitudes like those of Politician Spock, who stated that what the NSA is currently doing is the biggest threat to freedom in history, and to people like the Commish, who is confident that if Edward Snowden returned to the USA, he would be assassinated. I think these sorts of viewpoints represent an extreme fear/distrust of our own government which rivals the militia gangs and the more radical NRA supporters.

I do not believe, however, that people who have reasonable concerns over what the NSA is doing (I am one of them) are paranoid.
The "I" thing doesn't work here. Again, this isn't about you. Since well, you add nothing here.

 
As far as Snowden giving supposed classified information to Russia or China, I agree with Slapdash: prove it. There's way too much supposition going around here on all sides. Not only is it a very serious charge to make, it flies in the face of how Snowden has presented himself.

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully I will get a chance to watch the Frontline piece within the next few days. But I strongly doubt it has any proof that the New York Times refused to print stories because it was intimidated or scared by the government. Proof, in this case, would have to be the direct testimony of the publisher or the journalists involved: anything else is conjecture. The fact that they met with government officials proves nothing.

Without this sort of proof, I'll never believe in this kind of argument, because the Times has a long history of defying the government, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that Snowden believed that the Times wouldn't publish his story only makes me question him more- and not the Times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program

Take 5 minutes away from posting and watch starting at about the 102:30 mark. Both reporters and Keller himself interviewed. WH got the times to sit on the story and they didn't end up publishing until a year later, after the election. That's why Snowden chose not to go to the times specifically (mentioned elsewhere in the piece). The Times was urged from the highest levels that it was a matter of national security and publishing a story about The Program would be extremely dangerous. They only published after one of the NYT reporters decided he was releasing the information on his own in a book.
Wait. You expect him to stop typing for a few minutes and actually do some research? :lol:

Good luck!
I'm not surprised tim forgets the NYT and the whole W Iraq war thingy.
What about it?
Don't act surprised.

 
Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.
Are you familiar with Thomas Drake?

Without charging you with anything, the government can and will destroy your life if you cross them. The precedent has been set by the USA already. knowing that, I don't blame Snowden one bit for searching out countries that would grant him amnesty.

 
My personal use of the term "paranoid" is to describe attitudes like those of Politician Spock, who stated that what the NSA is currently doing is the biggest threat to freedom in history, and to people like the Commish, who is confident that if Edward Snowden returned to the USA, he would be assassinated. I think these sorts of viewpoints represent an extreme fear/distrust of our own government which rivals the militia gangs and the more radical NRA supporters.

I do not believe, however, that people who have reasonable concerns over what the NSA is doing (I am one of them) are paranoid.
The "I" thing doesn't work here. Again, this isn't about you. Since well, you add nothing here.
Yeah, you've been raising that for months now. Ever read the old "Avengers" comic book with Mantis (the Celestial Madonna)? She never referred to herself in the first person; she used the phrase "This one" to describe herself. So let me borrow from Mantis: this one doesn't care what you think.

 
Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.
Are you familiar with Thomas Drake?

Without charging you with anything, the government can and will destroy your life if you cross them. The precedent has been set by the USA already. knowing that, I don't blame Snowden one bit for searching out countries that would grant him amnesty.
Yeah, the Drake story was one of the most disturbing out of this. They destroyed his life for what added up to a misdemeanor. Drained his bank account for what added up to be a $25.00 fine. Egregious.

 
Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.
Are you familiar with Thomas Drake?

Without charging you with anything, the government can and will destroy your life if you cross them. The precedent has been set by the USA already. knowing that, I don't blame Snowden one bit for searching out countries that would grant him amnesty.
Don't leave out William Binney either.

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.
Please don't assume I want the government to be able to override security systems put in place, such as those employed by banking institutions and medical facilities and the network connections they reside on. I said sensitive information on the Internet and on computer systems. Personal identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers, medical records, bank transactions. If I encrypt the contents on my home PC, I do not want the gov't to be able to break that encryption and have access to my content. And if I converse with a friend or anyone else through hotmail or yahoo mail or footballguys, I realize it is being logged on some server somewhere. I am ok with that.

I want the intelligence agency to be able to track known terrorists. If they can gather information from yahoo, or facebook or some other social network, that could prevent terrorist activity, then I am ok with it.

Yes, I agree that making information available to the gov't also makes it available to any other party. That is how it is now. Serbian militant groups can use similar programs to spy on people through social media like facebook and yahoo. So can the Syrians. This leaked information contains the playbook of how our intel agency goes about this.

If or when made public this information will enable "any other party" to know exactly how the US plays the spy game. Like any other means of war, cyber-warfare is much about the race to arms. I don't want to give groups that would like to harm us the advantage of knowing how we operate. Sorry if that makes me seem unreasonable.
According to Frontline, they already had architecture in place that would both keep the privacy of Americans while being able to sniff out any communication while still keeping it legal and constitutional, but Cheney an Co. decided to blow that up and go even deeper and more massive that those who created the original program thought illegal.

They don't need this much information. Unless they want to use it for different purposes, which I'm sure they are willing to do.
I won't defend anything Cheney or Bush did. I was firmly against the Iraqi war and I was stationed over there during it.

Your first sentence is what I am talking about with regards to a gov't system used to surveille. Ensure the privacy of US citizens but also allow the possibility of capturing intel on radical groups who want to harm the US. That is what I want.

 
My personal use of the term "paranoid" is to describe attitudes like those of Politician Spock, who stated that what the NSA is currently doing is the biggest threat to freedom in history, and to people like the Commish, who is confident that if Edward Snowden returned to the USA, he would be assassinated. I think these sorts of viewpoints represent an extreme fear/distrust of our own government which rivals the militia gangs and the more radical NRA supporters.

I do not believe, however, that people who have reasonable concerns over what the NSA is doing (I am one of them) are paranoid.
The "I" thing doesn't work here. Again, this isn't about you. Since well, you add nothing here.
Yeah, you've been raising that for months now. Ever read the old "Avengers" comic book with Mantis (the Celestial Madonna)? She never referred to herself in the first person; she used the phrase "This one" to describe herself. So let me borrow from Mantis: this one doesn't care what you think.
You are doing it again. You got problems. Seek help. Seriously.

 
Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.
Are you familiar with Thomas Drake?

Without charging you with anything, the government can and will destroy your life if you cross them. The precedent has been set by the USA already. knowing that, I don't blame Snowden one bit for searching out countries that would grant him amnesty.
I think, given the Thomas Drake story, it was perfectly reasonable for Snowden to be fearful of persecution and prosecution, and to leave the USA after whistle blowing. What is NOT reasonable is:

1. He should be in fear of assassination by our government.

2. He should be in fear that our major news outlets, such as the New York Times, are so in thrall with the federal government that they will refuse to print such a story.

If you believe either of the two above points, then IMO you're over the edge paranoid (and if you disagree, show me definitive proof otherwise.)

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.
Please don't assume I want the government to be able to override security systems put in place, such as those employed by banking institutions and medical facilities and the network connections they reside on. I said sensitive information on the Internet and on computer systems. Personal identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers, medical records, bank transactions. If I encrypt the contents on my home PC, I do not want the gov't to be able to break that encryption and have access to my content. And if I converse with a friend or anyone else through hotmail or yahoo mail or footballguys, I realize it is being logged on some server somewhere. I am ok with that.

I want the intelligence agency to be able to track known terrorists. If they can gather information from yahoo, or facebook or some other social network, that could prevent terrorist activity, then I am ok with it.

Yes, I agree that making information available to the gov't also makes it available to any other party. That is how it is now. Serbian militant groups can use similar programs to spy on people through social media like facebook and yahoo. So can the Syrians. This leaked information contains the playbook of how our intel agency goes about this.

If or when made public this information will enable "any other party" to know exactly how the US plays the spy game. Like any other means of war, cyber-warfare is much about the race to arms. I don't want to give groups that would like to harm us the advantage of knowing how we operate. Sorry if that makes me seem unreasonable.
Funny little story about encryption and the NSA:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/university-apologizes-for-censoring-crypto-prof-over-anti-nsa-post/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.
Are you familiar with Thomas Drake?

Without charging you with anything, the government can and will destroy your life if you cross them. The precedent has been set by the USA already. knowing that, I don't blame Snowden one bit for searching out countries that would grant him amnesty.
Yes I've read his story. I haven't watched the PBS program but will certainly watch it soon.

I think it is appalling that the government would engage in activities such as described. And I hear what you guys are saying, I really do. I want a balance.

 
He wasn't against "national security" he was against one of the most aggregious abuses of power and corruption at the highest levels of the governement within itself.
I'm not saying he set out to do damage to national security or that he is anti-government in terms of national security. Just that his actions could result in damaging national security, depending on the actual contents of the leaked information.
The NSA is doing more damage to the market with it's programs. Once people start distrusting the internet, it makes people like Google nervous.
yes. I don't disagree. Everyone is freaked out about secure Internet computing and everyone is looking into encryption technologies faster than they can be developed. Countries will try to put walls up on their little corner of the Internet. I am all for Internet and computer security (it is my job) and I am all for protecting sensitive information on the Internet. My concern is the potential hinderance of cyber operations as it supports the war on terrorism.
How can you be all for cyber-security yet want the government to be able to to override it? Making information available to the government also makes it available to any other party.
Please don't assume I want the government to be able to override security systems put in place, such as those employed by banking institutions and medical facilities and the network connections they reside on. I said sensitive information on the Internet and on computer systems. Personal identifiable information such as social security numbers, account numbers, medical records, bank transactions. If I encrypt the contents on my home PC, I do not want the gov't to be able to break that encryption and have access to my content. And if I converse with a friend or anyone else through hotmail or yahoo mail or footballguys, I realize it is being logged on some server somewhere. I am ok with that.

I want the intelligence agency to be able to track known terrorists. If they can gather information from yahoo, or facebook or some other social network, that could prevent terrorist activity, then I am ok with it.

Yes, I agree that making information available to the gov't also makes it available to any other party. That is how it is now. Serbian militant groups can use similar programs to spy on people through social media like facebook and yahoo. So can the Syrians. This leaked information contains the playbook of how our intel agency goes about this.

If or when made public this information will enable "any other party" to know exactly how the US plays the spy game. Like any other means of war, cyber-warfare is much about the race to arms. I don't want to give groups that would like to harm us the advantage of knowing how we operate. Sorry if that makes me seem unreasonable.
That is the crux of the issue though. Not sure who is upset by the government gaining publicly available information from social media. Instead it is the purposeful compromising of software and hardware, storage and searches of private information like phone calls and emails, storage with the intent to decrypt encrypted communication, and partnering with corporations to get previously private data like Skype and Xbox Live video.

I'm not trying to assume, I'm trying to figure out what you are really saying. If our spycraft depends on the above techniques, then I'm not sure how Americans will not also be exposed.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top