Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (2 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

You don't think he is credible?

Link?

Here is the transcript: http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-interview-transcript-full-text-read-the-guardian-s-entire-interview-with-the-man-who-leaked-prism/613179

Also would be interesting to know what is on the rest of the PRISM slides that have yet to be published.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

One thing I'd like to establish is his actual knowledge levels and access privileges. He clearly had access to some interesting stuff, but I'd like to know what he knew about firsthand vs what he heard could be done with their systems.

You don't think he is credible?"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

Link?

How about a link to where I said "I don't think this guy is credible."

 

[Fennis]

I don't think this guy is credible.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't think this guy is credible.

 

[Slapdash]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

You're either fishing or lack the reading comprehension to understand people like Orwell, Hayek, and Friedman you think you keep pretending agree with you.

Freedom and dictatorship aren't binary options.

I never said they were.

I have to leave again. I'm enjoying the debate, but it's really sad to me that every often you seem to resort to insults, like claiming I lack reading comprehension. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my interpretation of Orwell, or Hayek, or Friedman might be different from yours. But it's not like I'm stating any original ideas here. Every point I've made has been made first by other people a lot smarter than me- I just happen to agree with them. So if we're going to discuss this further later on, please abstain from the insults and superior attitude. You're a guy I respect a lot here; your posts are almost always thoughtful, and the fact that I disagree with you on this issue doesn't change my high opinion of you.

Listen, you're free to want to give up all of your privacy because you are scared of the terrorism boogeyman or don't understand what this technology actually does.

But you can't sit here and argue from authority that these liberty-minded people (who wrote books about a populations that lose their freedom) would laugh at concern that the government is massively spying on its citizens. That deserves nothing more than ridicule.

I have time to respond to this one post before I have to go into another meeting. Sorry about that.

First off, George Orwell was not a libertarian, so it would be incorrect to lump him in with people like Hayek and Friedman. I absolutely believe that if Orwell were alive he would recognize the internet as an essential antidote to his warning of a non-information society as depicted in 1984, and he would reject the notion that the same technology could be used to turn us into a dictatorship.

As regards Hayek and Friedman, I don't think they would laugh at the concern that government is massively spying on its citizens. I'm fairly sure they would be strongly opposed, to the extent that we might disagree on it. But I also believe that they would agree with my position that in the overall scheme of things, tyranny is not threatened, that there are too many other factors that would prevent tyranny, and that this issue is being over-prioritized by some of you. I don't think that based on my reading of these two gentlemen that is an unreasonable assessment, and it's hardly worthy of ridicule.

As to your first sentence, you keep making the same false statement and trying to apply it to me. I'm certainly not willing to give up "all of my privacy." I'm not willing to give up ANY of my privacy- or to be absolutely correct (since you tried to contradict me before) any of my ESSENTIAL privacy. I don't think it's affected at all by what's going on here.

I'll stand by my initial assertion that the bold is all fishing.

Not sure what you think "essential privacy" is if you think any of your electronic communications are fair game. I have yet to see you point to anything as off-limits.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Anyone looking for a job? The NSA is hiring "digital exploitation specialists."

https://twitter.com/NSACareers/statuses/342674826898579457

 

[RCon]

A question for timschochet...

There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't think this guy is credible.

 

[Doug B]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

 

[timschochet]

A question for timschochet...

There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course.

Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.)

In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices.

But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

 

[Slapdash]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

Really shows how far down the road we've already gone. At least Rand Paul and Tom Udall are still fighting it.

 

[timschochet]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

He's right.

A lot of people wrongly consider Franken to be a progressive, and he is in some issues. But in others he's very moderate. I admire him a great deal.

 

[timschochet]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

Really shows how far down the road we've already gone. At least Rand Paul and Tom Udall are still fighting it.

Don't know much about Udall, but if Rand Paul is fighting against something, I'm probably for it.

 

[Slapdash]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

Really shows how far down the road we've already gone. At least Rand Paul and Tom Udall are still fighting it.

Don't know much about Udall, but if Rand Paul is fighting against something, I'm probably for it.

So you support drones killing within US borders too?

 

[timschochet]

Rand Paul is far scarier to me than Ted Cruz or Michele Bachmann. Those two just say outrageous stuff for the headlines, but Paul is deadly serious, and what's worse, he sounds intelligent when he spews his nonsense. Thankfully, his dad was basically ignored, but Paul is actually a threat to dominate the GOP. Heaven forbid that happens.

And it really irks me that the news media describes Paul as a libertarian.

 

[RCon]

Erm, if I'm reading BigSteelThrill's posts correctly, he's very unhappy about this development. He's simply arguing that we shouldn't be surprised by it since Obama mostly voted for this kind of thing as a senator.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I wasn't sure how I felt about Paul until Tim brought clarity. Thanks!

 

[timschochet]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

Really shows how far down the road we've already gone. At least Rand Paul and Tom Udall are still fighting it.

Don't know much about Udall, but if Rand Paul is fighting against something, I'm probably for it.

So you support drones killing within US borders too?

I think Paul's speech on that was paranoid and ridiculous.

 

[timschochet]

Erm, if I'm reading BigSteelThrill's posts correctly, he's very unhappy about this development. He's simply arguing that we shouldn't be surprised by it since Obama mostly voted for this kind of thing as a senator.

Maybe I read him wrong. He brought up court decisions to demonstrate that this didn't violate the 4th Amendment (I wasn't aware of them.)

 

[timschochet]

I wasn't sure how I felt about Paul until Tim brought clarity. Thanks!

Always HTH!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Erm, if I'm reading BigSteelThrill's posts correctly, he's very unhappy about this development. He's simply arguing that we shouldn't be surprised by it since Obama mostly voted for this kind of thing as a senator.

TYVM Rich.

That is correct, but this isnt a "new" development.

We shouldn't be challenging it in court ( a conservative SC will allow for it, obviously). We should be drafting new legislation to be rid of it. Whoever does that is serious about changing the current system.

 

[RCon]

A question for timschochet...

There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course.

Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.)

In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices.

But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

"Moderate" isn't always a good thing. It's OK to feel strongly about certain issues sometimes.

 

[Politician Spock]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

 

[Slapdash]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

Damn -- he's one who'd usually heap dung all over this kind of thing.

Really shows how far down the road we've already gone. At least Rand Paul and Tom Udall are still fighting it.

Don't know much about Udall, but if Rand Paul is fighting against something, I'm probably for it.

So you support drones killing within US borders too?

I think Paul's speech on that was paranoid and ridiculous.

Of course. You'll be able to see the tyranny coming only when they are at your door.

 

[RCon]

Erm, if I'm reading BigSteelThrill's posts correctly, he's very unhappy about this development. He's simply arguing that we shouldn't be surprised by it since Obama mostly voted for this kind of thing as a senator.

TYVM Rich.

That is correct, but this isnt a "new" development.

We shouldn't be challenging it in court ( a conservative SC will allow for it, obviously). We should be drafting new legislation to be rid of it. Whoever does that is serious about changing the current system.

I think we should do both. I wouldn't be surprised if the current court ruled that this sort of crap isn't cool. I have absolutely no idea what Scalia will do on any given libertarian type cause, but I could see Thomas and/or Roberts squashing it.

Oh, and edit to add "Damn!", I can't believe I didn't work "if my notebook is correct" into that previous post...

 

[Slapdash]

"Moderate" isn't always a good thing.

For Tim, it often seems to be a virtue in itself. I have pointed this out before in other threads.

 

[timschochet]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

 

[RCon]

A question for timschochet...

There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course.

Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.)

In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices.

But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

My notebook says that Slapdash is fairly moderate, actually. Am I wrong on this one?

 

[Doug B]

I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.)

IMHO, from a pragmatic point of view, you're making a good bit of sense. It would be great to have all the privacy we feel we're constitutionally due, but that ship apparently sailed a long time ago.

At least Slapdash has put some thought into how the toothpaste gets back into the tube. But man ... I don't know.

 

[timschochet]

"Moderate" isn't always a good thing.

For Tim, it often seems to be a virtue in itself. I have pointed this out before in other threads.

Not really. It depends on the issue. By any objective standard, I am an extremist on the subjects of illegal immigration and abortion, to cite two examples. And there are others as well.

But I'll admit that in reaction to issues such as this one, in which we're still learning about it, my tendency is to shun emotional responses and also slippery slope "what if" arguments, in favor of what I believe is a more thoughtful approach. Quite often that puts me in the "centrist" or "moderate" position, at least initially. As I learn more about it, if the original fearmongers are correct then I will join them. In most cases (including this one) I think they're well meaning. (Not all cases, though.)

 

[StrikeS2k]

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Tim,

You don't really make arguments. For example, everyone in this thread says that their telephone conversations and Internet history qualify as privacy. You respond with "No it's not" or "Well that's not essential privacy", whatever the heck that is. But pretty much EVERYONE in this thread considers this type of data part of their own privacy. Period. If you can't agree with everyone on simple terms there's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you. It's one of the reasons I find myself frustrated with you on a regular basis.

 

[Slapdash]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Care to articulate again what your "specific argument" is? Seems like there has been an awful lot of appeal to authority, ad hominem, and conditional statements. Sure you have asked for more oversight, but even you have admitted it is unlikely to do much.

So I'll ask again: where is your line on what violates your privacy? Is there anything that it is not OK to collect on you as long as you are part of a broader sweep?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Tim,

You don't really make arguments. For example, everyone in this thread says that their telephone conversations and Internet history qualify as privacy. You respond with "No it's not" or "Well that's not essential privacy", whatever the heck that is. But pretty much EVERYONE in this thread considers this type of data part of their own privacy. Period. If you can't agree with everyone on simple terms there's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you. It's one of the reasons I find myself frustrated with you on a regular basis.

Not really. It is what everyone wants. But they flatly dont care about it being private and refuse to act in a manner that shows they do.

Everyone right now KNOWS their info is getting grabbed and stored (be it on forums or google or voices over a companies line) and yet they keep on doing it.

In fact, based by our own actions, we dont even care that it isnt private.

 

[RCon]

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Tim,

You don't really make arguments. For example, everyone in this thread says that their telephone conversations and Internet history qualify as privacy. You respond with "No it's not" or "Well that's not essential privacy", whatever the heck that is. But pretty much EVERYONE in this thread considers this type of data part of their own privacy. Period. If you can't agree with everyone on simple terms there's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you. It's one of the reasons I find myself frustrated with you on a regular basis.

StrikeS2K is definitely right in this instance. Metadata about my call records is part of my privacy. Saying "no it isn't" doesn't change the fact that this is information that the government didn't use to have and now does. Therefore, that information is less private than it used to be. That's not a debate, it's a simple fact. You may feel that information isn't important to you, but a whole lot of people do feel it's important, and the previous privacy of it has now been removed.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Tim,

You don't really make arguments. For example, everyone in this thread says that their telephone conversations and Internet history qualify as privacy. You respond with "No it's not" or "Well that's not essential privacy", whatever the heck that is. But pretty much EVERYONE in this thread considers this type of data part of their own privacy. Period. If you can't agree with everyone on simple terms there's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you. It's one of the reasons I find myself frustrated with you on a regular basis.

Not really. It is what everyone wants. But they flatly dont care about it being private and refuse to act in a manner that shows they do.

Everyone right now KNOWS their info is getting grabbed and stored (be it on forums or google or voices over a companies line) and yet they keep on doing it.

In fact, based by our own actions, we dont even care that it isnt private.

When I say everyone I'm referring to people in this thread. Not that it matters. The fact that they allow it to captured doesn't mean they don't consider the collection a violation of their privacy or that they don't care. In some instances they have little if any control over the collection of the data and in others they make the calculated decision to allow it to be collected.

 

[TPW]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

He's right.

A lot of people wrongly consider Franken to be a progressive, and he is in some issues. But in others he's very moderate. I admire him a great deal.

http://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uploads/franken_al_diapers.jpg

 

[Doug B]

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Tim,

You don't really make arguments. For example, everyone in this thread says that their telephone conversations and Internet history qualify as privacy. You respond with "No it's not" or "Well that's not essential privacy", whatever the heck that is. But pretty much EVERYONE in this thread considers this type of data part of their own privacy. Period. If you can't agree with everyone on simple terms there's no way to have an intelligent conversation with you. It's one of the reasons I find myself frustrated with you on a regular basis.

Not really. It is what everyone wants. But they (the collective sicietal "they" - db) flatly dont care about it being private and refuse to act in a manner that shows they do.

On the money.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, said: "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know. "

He's right.

A lot of people wrongly consider Franken to be a progressive, and he is in some issues. But in others he's very moderate. I admire him a great deal.

http://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uploads/franken_al_diapers.jpg

I think I've been scarred for life.

 

[dickey moe]

Great Moderates in World History by tim s chochet...

 

[Politician Spock]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw. But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

What you believe are arguments or rebuttals are not arguments or rebuttals. To argue and/or rebuttal that Orwell would not be a libertarian like other writers is not an argument or rebuttal regarding the issue at hand. It is a moot point. A completely moot point. Whether Orwell is or is not a libertarian, or if this person is or is not part of that group, and that person is or is not part of this group are all completely moot points. You get so caught up with labeling people, grouping people and associating one point with other points, and how they relate to each other, that you lose sight of the issue at hand. You think you are arguing and rebutting... but it's all just noise. The occasional valueable nugget of information may exist in your posts, but it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack of a ton of moot crap.

 

[timschochet]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw.

But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Care to articulate again what your "specific argument" is? Seems like there has been an awful lot of appeal to authority, ad hominem, and conditional statements. Sure you have asked for more oversight, but even you have admitted it is unlikely to do much.

So I'll ask again: where is your line on what violates your privacy? Is there anything that it is not OK to collect on you as long as you are part of a broader sweep?

OK, let me clarify because apparently I haven't made myself clear on this, and that is my own fault I guess.

The answer to your question is: I don't know exactly. Here's what I do know:

1. if the government decides that I am a suspicious person, and they want to search my house and attempt to do so without a warrant or my permission, that is a clear violation of my privacy.

2. If the government is parsing through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific code words that will hopefully help them catch terrorists, I am OK with that. I don't believe that essentially violates my privacy.

The answer to your question is somewhere between the two. You ask if there's any broad sweep that I would consider a violation, and I can only say maybe. I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it. I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

What I DON'T regard as a worthwhile discussion is the fear that the government will use point #2 in order to establish a tyranny. I think that's way over the top, and that is really the main part of your argument that I have attempted to take issue with.

Hope that's more clear.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Fox News Analyst: Bring Back Death Penalty For NSA Whistleblower



Yeah, Snowden risked an absolute shit-ton doing this.

 

[Politician Spock]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw. But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Care to articulate again what your "specific argument" is? Seems like there has been an awful lot of appeal to authority, ad hominem, and conditional statements. Sure you have asked for more oversight, but even you have admitted it is unlikely to do much. So I'll ask again: where is your line on what violates your privacy? Is there anything that it is not OK to collect on you as long as you are part of a broader sweep?

OK, let me clarify because apparently I haven't made myself clear on this, and that is my own fault I guess. The answer to your question is: I don't know exactly. Here's what I do know: 1. if the government decides that I am a suspicious person, and they want to search my house and attempt to do so without a warrant or my permission, that is a clear violation of my privacy. 2. If the government is parsing through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific code words that will hopefully help them catch terrorists, I am OK with that. I don't believe that essentially violates my privacy. The answer to your question is somewhere between the two. You ask if there's any broad sweep that I would consider a violation, and I can only say maybe. I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it. I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. What I DON'T regard as a worthwhile discussion is the fear that the government will use point #2 in order to establish a tyranny. I think that's way over the top, and that is really the main part of your argument that I have attempted to take issue with. Hope that's more clear.

What if they parse through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific codes words that will hopefully help them identify people who are speaking grievances of the government and they justify it by labling them "domestic terrorists"?

 

[timschochet]

Fox News Analyst: Bring Back Death Penalty For NSA Whistleblower



Yeah, Snowden risked an absolute shit-ton doing this.

Did somebody really say that?

Based on what I know, I have no problem with Snowden. None whatsoever. I don't understand why this program needs to be a secret. Either it makes sense or it doesn't. It would be one thing if he leaked what the program specifically learned about terrorists- that IMO would be treason. But the idea of the program itself should be wide open for us as the public to evaluate and either approve or take issue with.

The fact that this has been kept secret is the one aspect that bothers me the most. I suspect (and hope) that it's simply the knee-jerk reaction of the national security folks within our federal government who like to keep everything a secret if they can. But it bothers me anyhow.

 

[timschochet]

A question for timschochet... There are a lot of posters here, whose opinions you claim to respect greatly, who all say you're completely wrong on this issue. Not a little bit wrong, but 100%, totally off-base. Those posters also span the gamut from highly conservative to moderate to really liberal (e.g. we've got IvanK, NCCommish, Slapdash, and Spock alone span a pretty solid spectrum), so it's not as if it's a standard lockstep group. Doesn't that give you pause that maybe you actually are wrong about this?

Of course. Actually, IvanK bothers me the most among the guys you mentioned, because I agree with him much more than I disagree. NC Commish and Slapdash are two of the smartest people on this board, but they're also very progressive and I disagree with them on a host of issues (though I respect them greatly.) I respect you highly as well, as you know, but we also have fundamental disagreements. I would also note that both Dr. Detroit and Big Steel Thrill seemed to agree with at least SOME of my arguments, so I am not completely alone here (much as I might want to be a martyr.) In terms of national opinion, there are both liberals and conservatives who share my opinion: Alan Dershowitz, the Wall Street Journal, Michael Medved, and a few others. What they have in common is they tend to be moderates within their political movements, as is Barack Obama. The people most outraged by this tend to be the extremists in either party: the most progressive and the most conservative voices. In other words- and I know I'll get hammered for using this term again- the most populist voices. But I want to remind you and everyone else again that I AM concerned about this issue, and the larger issue of privacy vs. security. I want a discussion about it. I worry that the controls are insufficient. I'm just not willing to make the sort of summary judgments you guys are making until we learn more.

The easiest way to respond to multiple voices in opposition to you, is to fire one bullet that hits them all.In other words, if you can group all the voices of opposition into one common characteristic, then you can just fire one bullet at that characteristic.Thus you must make observations of the multiple voices, such as "they tend to be", which of course the tending you chose to observe in all the voices leads to the characteristic that you want to fire the bullet it at.Of course, all of this observation of tends that you want to point out, so you can fire your one bullet, must exist in a process of ignoring a ton of other observation that does not lead to one bullet that can hit them all.It also ignores that even if all the voices of opposition are "populists", is that a bad thing in regards to privacy. Granted populism is not an "ism" that can be applied accross the board to every aspect of government. But in regards to the right to privacy, it is, by it's very nature, a populist ideal.To sum up everything I've said above, you are grapsing at a straw, and a weak one at that.

You would be correct if all I did was simply label my opponents as populists or extremists without attempting to answer them. THAT would be grasping at a weak straw. But in fact I have attempted to respond to my critics here with specific arguments and rebuttals. You may disagree with them (as I'm sure you do) but I don't think I can be accused of skirting the issues or relying on labeling. Since I have made my specific arguments and responded to same, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out some similarities among those who disagree with me.

Care to articulate again what your "specific argument" is? Seems like there has been an awful lot of appeal to authority, ad hominem, and conditional statements. Sure you have asked for more oversight, but even you have admitted it is unlikely to do much. So I'll ask again: where is your line on what violates your privacy? Is there anything that it is not OK to collect on you as long as you are part of a broader sweep?

OK, let me clarify because apparently I haven't made myself clear on this, and that is my own fault I guess. The answer to your question is: I don't know exactly. Here's what I do know: 1. if the government decides that I am a suspicious person, and they want to search my house and attempt to do so without a warrant or my permission, that is a clear violation of my privacy. 2. If the government is parsing through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific code words that will hopefully help them catch terrorists, I am OK with that. I don't believe that essentially violates my privacy. The answer to your question is somewhere between the two. You ask if there's any broad sweep that I would consider a violation, and I can only say maybe. I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it. I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. What I DON'T regard as a worthwhile discussion is the fear that the government will use point #2 in order to establish a tyranny. I think that's way over the top, and that is really the main part of your argument that I have attempted to take issue with. Hope that's more clear.

What if they parse through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific codes words that will hopefully help them identify people who are speaking grievances of the government and they justify it by labling them "domestic terrorists"?

I would have a serious problem with that.

 

[sporthenry]

Fox News Analyst: Bring Back Death Penalty For NSA Whistleblower



Yeah, Snowden risked an absolute shit-ton doing this.

This is what I don't get. We can talk about the metadata and all the other policies and I can see both sides.But what in the hell did this guy do that was that bad? He took classified information and released it? Certainly not the first nor the last time this has happened. And what damage has it done? I can understand the government not wanting to condone such leaks b/c then we'll have a bunch of guys deciding with their own conscience what deserves to be public and what doesn't.

But in this case, it certainly seems that this should have been public. We have a right to know whats going on and in this situation, I think the people can help formulate what should happen. Things like Franken said seem to just be complete boogeyman. Terrorists knew that they could be traced electronically before this and it isn't like he divulged secrets about how it works. I have no idea how we are unsafer today than we were a week ago WRT terrorism b/c of this leak.

And then you listen to all the intelligence experts and you can see how they think. They think they are above the laws but nobody else is. I'm not an extremist when it comes to this argument, I've bought into the whole, not doing anything wrong what do I have to worry about before. But this certainly seems to be the slippery slope and I think its easy to see how it could be abused without any checks on the system.

 

[timschochet]

Then again, I could be wrong about Snowden. Jeffrey Toobin, another guy I really respect a lot, makes an interesting argument against Snowden in The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html

Edward Snowden, a twenty-nine-year-old former C.I.A. employee and current government contractor, has leaked news of National Security Agency programs that collect vast amounts of information about the telephone calls made by millions of Americans, as well as e-mails and other files of foreign targets and their American connections. For this, some, including my colleague John Cassidy, are hailing him as a hero and a whistle-blower. He is neither. He is, rather, a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison.

Snowden provided information to the Washington Post and the Guardian, which also posted a video interview with him. In it, he describes himself as appalled by the government he served:

The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your e-mails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your e-mails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.

I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.

What, one wonders, did Snowden think the N.S.A. did? Any marginally attentive citizen, much less N.S.A. employee or contractor, knows that the entire mission of the agency is to intercept electronic communications. Perhaps he thought that the N.S.A. operated only outside the United States; in that case, he hadn’t been paying very close attention. In any event, Snowden decided that he does not “want to live in a society” that intercepts private communications. His latter-day conversion is dubious.

And what of his decision to leak the documents? Doing so was, as he more or less acknowledges, a crime. Any government employee or contractor is warned repeatedly that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a crime. But Snowden, apparently, was answering to a higher calling. “When you see everything you realize that some of these things are abusive,” he said. “The awareness of wrongdoing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up. It was a natural process.” These were legally authorized programs; in the case of Verizon Business’s phone records, Snowden certainly knew this, because he leaked the very court order that approved the continuation of the project. So he wasn’t blowing the whistle on anything illegal; he was exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety. The question, of course, is whether the government can function when all of its employees (and contractors) can take it upon themselves to sabotage the programs they don’t like. That’s what Snowden has done.

What makes leak cases difficult is that some leaking—some interaction between reporters and sources who have access to classified information—is normal, even indispensable, in a society with a free press. It’s not easy to draw the line between those kinds of healthy encounters and the wholesale, reckless dumping of classified information by the likes of Snowden or Bradley Manning. Indeed, Snowden was so irresponsible in what he gave the Guardian and the Post that even these institutions thought some of it should not be disseminated to the public. The Post decided to publish only four of the forty-one slides that Snowden provided. Its exercise of judgment suggests the absence of Snowden’s.

Snowden fled to Hong Kong when he knew publication of his leaks was imminent. In his interview, he said he went there because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.” This may be true, in some limited way, but the overriding fact is that Hong Kong is part of China—which is, as Snowden knows, a stalwart adversary of the United States in intelligence matters. (Evan Osnos has more on that.) Snowden is now at the mercy of the Chinese leaders who run Hong Kong. As a result, all of Snowden’s secrets may wind up in the hands of the Chinese government—which has no commitment at all to free speech or the right to political dissent. And that makes Snowden a hero?

The American government, and its democracy, are flawed institutions. But our system offers legal options to disgruntled government employees and contractors. They can take advantage of federal whistle-blower laws; they can bring their complaints to Congress; they can try to protest within the institutions where they work. But Snowden did none of this. Instead, in an act that speaks more to his ego than his conscience, he threw the secrets he knew up in the air—and trusted, somehow, that good would come of it. We all now have to hope that he’s right.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Fox News Analyst: Bring Back Death Penalty For NSA Whistleblower



Yeah, Snowden risked an absolute shit-ton doing this.

But what in the hell did this guy do that was that bad? He took classified information and released it?

Bradly Manning did the same thing, albeit in a less nuanced manner.

He is in a secret trial right now which the press (and you and me) are not allowed to know anything about. Hows that for "fair" and "American".

 

[5 digit know nothing]

OK, let me clarify because apparently I haven't made myself clear on this, and that is my own fault I guess. The answer to your question is: I don't know exactly. Here's what I do know: 1. if the government decides that I am a suspicious person, and they want to search my house and attempt to do so without a warrant or my permission, that is a clear violation of my privacy. 2. If the government is parsing through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific code words that will hopefully help them catch terrorists, I am OK with that. I don't believe that essentially violates my privacy. The answer to your question is somewhere between the two. You ask if there's any broad sweep that I would consider a violation, and I can only say maybe. I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it. I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. What I DON'T regard as a worthwhile discussion is the fear that the government will use point #2 in order to establish a tyranny. I think that's way over the top, and that is really the main part of your argument that I have attempted to take issue with. Hope that's more clear.

So you are ok with:1. if the government wants to search all houses and to do so without a warrant or permission, document all items found along with who lives there only to recall this manifest at a later date when appropriate.