General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHero or devil's spawn, I don't give a shit. It's massive expansion of surveillance
and all it entails that concerns me. I'm not going to get caught up in the personalities of this when it's not what's important. Certain people at DU are working their tails off to deflect from the issue and make it all about Snowden.
It is not.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)It is flat-out fucking WRONG!
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)It may be "legal" but it sure as hell isn't CONSTITUTIONAL.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ForeignandDomestic
(190 posts)When the likes of Peter King and Lindsey Graham are leading the chorus on the treasonous claim I'm going to reserve my judgement on that. I know the interest those two shills are working for and it isn't on behalf of the American people.
lark
(23,775 posts)There are some things that are bigger than a broad and technical reading of the law, like rights of privacy. Guess you are OK with drones and all the details of your phone calls, texts and emails being reviewed by the government?
Are you blind? your privacy? Have you ever bought something with a credit card, or something online?... do you have cable tv, internet phone.... You internet provider know what websites you view, your phone company know who you call, your online store knows your credit card number, netflix knows what movies you watch, facebook something and look at the right side of the page ....your stuff. every go to a webpage, then go to another and see advertising for the previous page? yes you have. Ever get shitty phone calls at dinner, why are they calling you, because you may need something, you have looked it up and then you phone number is in a database...and you want to drop the hammer on the government......? this is 2013 and if I need to give up a little freedom for safety and peace of mind, so be it.. I'm not running from anybody, I'm not a criminal, I have a good irish name, ...let them look.......any "whistle-blower who steals and runs to the border instead of staying and confronting their accusers is a thief, and a criminal, not a hero
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...until the government decides you are one.
There are plenty of perfectly legal groups that one can associate with and still end up on a watch list. At present, OWS is the canonical example of this. Apart from their occupations, they have held demonstrations and the like that were 100% peaceful and 100% legal and constitutional per the First Amendment:
And yet if you are known to be associated with them you are considered potentially subversive or worse. So maybe you're not a fan of OWS, still, if you have any interest in actively engaging in our political discourse, you better watch your back. Some things are acceptable to say and some things aren't -- and it is not all about whether you threaten violence. Anything, anything that threatens the status quo is taken as a threat.
Finally, privacy vis a vis companies is different than privacy vis a vis the government. For one thing, any one business has access to their own data, not all data. Whereas the government is gaining more and more access to consolidated data. For another thing, a company can't send someone to your house to have you arrested. The government can.
I don't think you have thought this through.
lark
(23,775 posts)I am partially blind, but that has nothing to do with this, thank you very much. I know industry data mines all the time, but that's a big false equivalence. It's not used to prosecute or persecute anyone and what the government's doing is for that purpose. If you give up privacy for liberty you will end up with neither - to paraphrase an old wise saying. the governmenet isn't just tracking numbers, they are also keeping content as well. A few years ago it came out that the FBI was listening in on domestic only phone calls just for the purient value, nothing about national security. Do you think that isn't still going on? It's been leaked out from the security committee that the data mining is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not want the government to read my texts, emails or listen to my phone converstions.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)avebury
(11,034 posts)Did he work for the Government?
Did he sign any documents (or was he presented with any documents) relating to official state secrets)?
Were the documents he released documents available as an employee for the company he worked for?
Did he sign any non-disclosure documents for his employer?
If he was never asked to sign any documents regarding state secrets, why did the US Government provide said documents to any company without covering its ass?
I am not the least bit concerned that he might have revealed that we spied on China because that just plain isn't real news. All countries spy on one another, even allies. What is far more relevant is the actions that our Government takes regarding to our citizens and if said actions are in fact constitutional. The Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites having no problem with what occurred during the Bush administration and having a hissyfit about what occurs during the Obama administration.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and that logic is flawwed ....if he revealed ANYTHING about that program....he committed treason...whether it is well known or not...he is NOT allowed to confirm anything....that is WHY he was given Top Secret Clearance. He had to sign Public Trust documents every year....guarantee you that.
MineralMan
(147,072 posts)days. Count on it. It may also be about Glenn Greenwald, who has not been heard from since yesterday.
It may be about other things, too. We'll see.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm not the only person who realizes that the issues are more important than the personalities.
MineralMan
(147,072 posts)However, all parties will be interested in diverting attention from those issues.
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Junkdrawer This message was self-deleted by its author.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)MineralMan
(147,072 posts)They weren't really for internal use, but for briefing people with only a modest need to know. At least the stuff I saw was like that. How deeply Snowden was able to dig isn't clear.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Why are top secret (?) details of the United States' cyber espionage campaign vs. China made available to low level employees of Booz Allen?
What is the extent of the intermingling of government and corporate agencies?
Is that intermingling a good thing?
paleotn
(18,799 posts)...(1) database admins usually need extraordinary access rights simply to do their jobs. That's been a thorn in my arse from a financial controls perspective for many years.
(2) You can't tell where the government ends and the contractors begin. Seriously. After a couple decades or more of privatization, government contractors of various sorts are so embedded in every segment of the US government that it can no longer function without them.
(3) That's a negative.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Please.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)What comes of that debate depends on the issue not becoming about Snowden, but what he revealed.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)It may not be right for the NSA to have the same data as the phone company, but it is legal. What Snowden may have uncovered is a debate of how people feel about NSA having this legal data opposed to the phone company - whether Snowden knows this or not, and I don't think he does. More like Greenwald is leading this discussion. But the law comes down to what the people expect of their privacy in having this data possessed by the NSA. And people are alright with the phone company having this data.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Slavery was legal.
Discrimination was legal.
Being "legal" doesn't mean that much.
I doubt that this vast program is constitutional. It chills our exercise of fundamental rights too much. We have the right to think outrageous thoughts -- and to express them. The press has an absolute right. At least that is what Thomas Jefferson thought. He said that the press should not be limited, that it should be absolutely free. I agree with him.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Someone said...
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)TYT address the issue of legality. Seems it may not have been as legal as we have been
led to bellieve.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
This ruling said that by "giving" data (such as phone numbers) to a "third party" (such as a phone company) you had given up any expectation of privacy in that data...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/10020823374/real-scandal-not-that-nsa-broke-law-vast-spying-that-it-probably-didnt.shtml
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of these activities to determine just how legal or illegal they may be.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The people already allow the storing of numbers with the phone company. Now debate whether they approve of NSA storing these same numbers for later use in an investigation - where a warrant is necessary.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)They can store it for billing purposess with the assumption on my part that I won't become part of a dragnet originating from them.
It doesn't make sense to me or cost effective for NSA to store millions of numbers that 'might' be needed in the future. Let them get a warrant for the calling records of the suspect and THEN if my number comes up, so be it.
Why would a terrorist use a traceable phone in the first place which spawns another question: why is NSA really storing my number?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)They store the numbers for 5 years so they can have a number to track when they investigate the foreign suspect. If the numbers were not stored on their servers the phone company would delete them when NSA may need them.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Can't the gov't enact 'something' to force the telecommunication companies to store the numbers?
Of course the contractors would lose out then.
Edit: If the phone companies did the storing, I'm sure some quid pro quo could be worked out.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)However it can be done. On NSA's servers or the phone companies servers. In the mean time lets listen to Snowden threaten to release more damaging documents exposing the NSA's activities in preventing terrorism.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)secretly held information and what it can do to reporters, judges, congresscritters as well as ordinary citizens than I do of terrorists. Just my most humble opinion.
We'll learn more as this story unfolds and hopefully be in better positions to form conclusions.
I'm so happy that we kept our back and forth civil...thanks! Nice meeting you Life Long Dem.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)exactly HOW it came to be known to the public is irrelevant - issues have been raised and need to be addressed.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is the aggregation of data that the government can do.
My phone company has access to its own phone records. It does not have access to the phone records of other phone companies.
The NSA, though, apparently has access to all phone records. That is a very big difference. For example, if I call out to someone who is with a different service, then my phone company can track the graph from me to them, but it cannot extend that graph from them to whoever else they may have called right after they spoke to me. But the NSA can.
Even if the data is not being misused now (Ha!), there is a 100% probability that it will be misused in the future, especially as the databank grows.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers was saying today that the phone numbers the NSA have are like dots in a box. Where they are just numbers with no names attached to them. And these numbers once they have been traced to a phone number are then handed over to the FBI for investigation.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...c'mon. ANYONE can get a backtrace on a number these days. If Mike Rogers doesn't know that, then his presence on the Intelligence Committee is laughable.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)But it's said they are only interested in numbers to hand over. It doesn't sound right but that's what they are saying. Senator Diane Feinstein was just saying pretty much the same thing.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...she is a real MIC lackey.
Anyway, what was being described is how it is SUPPOSED TO work. Ha. Ha. Ha.
"In theory, theory and reality are the same; in reality, theory and reality are different."
SlimJimmy
(3,246 posts)That is going to be the next shoe to drop.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If it was all legal, no one would have risked being prosecuted for perjury. (Of course, with Holder, the risk of prosecution is very small unless a person is a whistle-blower or a marijuana seller.)
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Just misunderstood.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)When Secord misled Congress, he received probation although he could have received a five-year sentence.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-25/news/mn-959_1_misleading-congress-iran-contra
With respect to Clapper:
So you don't see Clapper as committing perjury.
Excuse me, but so what?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,246 posts)"No, sir," Clapper responded.
"It does not?" Wyden pressed.
Clapper recanted and said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect -- but not wittingly."
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)He won't be found guilty of perjury because...
Clapper has already deployed what could be called the it depends on what the meaning of collect is defense.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/
Your post refers to Clappers misunderstood wording of "collect". There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect...
SlimJimmy
(3,246 posts)by parsing the definition of "collect" is not the point. If he would lie about collecting data on Americans, he would also lie about other issues. And that goes for General Alexander as well. I think too many here have this blind faith in the intel community that is woefully misplaced.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)other than the little that has been revealed. Yet you are quick to declare their actions "legal". Some are trying to paint Snowden and Greenwald as total idiots, not realizing whether or not the data they have is "legal" or not. I doubt that's the case.
"And people are alright with the phone company having this data." You say that like you know what data the NSA has. You dont know that. And the people dont know what data the phone company has, so how are we alright with that?
We need to know what kind of data the NSA has asked the phone companies to give them. And shame on those that want to look the other way and pretend this never happened.
Transparency is essential for Democracy. Secrecy is essential for authoritarian rule.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't see more transparency. We all heard and know what Snowden has released. And what Snowden has released has been shown to be legal. Section 215 and FISA all allow this.
And I don't attack Snowden or Greenwald. I don't call Snowden a traitor. I do say he committed a crime in stealing classified material. I do say we knew about this stuff since 2006, but I don't say we shouldn't have a debate on this.
On what basis are you declaring the data as "legal"?
Thank you cali.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and manufacturing it and embroidering it. Some are in the Government. Some are at think tanks and some are right here at DU.
I'm not big on using the word hero, but this guy appears to me, at least initially, to be a thoughtful, smart and courageous guy.
Translation: the guy's character is worth discussing and defending and praising, until he reveals himself to be a narcissistic traitor
Aerows
(39,961 posts)you already deemed him such from the get go, which doesn't exactly reflect a lack of bias.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)You've repeatedly branded him a traitor, a liar and now we have a narcissist. Which collection would you like for me to pull up, because I will gladly provide links. I really don't care to justify my statements to you personally, but my integrity demands that I will, if you like.
And I have no doubt that 15 other posters know exactly what I'm talking about, too. Your posts speak for themselves.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Your apology in advance is accepted.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Does that mean you know that's what you said? I think I'll pass. I have better things to do with my time than prove something to a person that already knows I'm right. LOL.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to even attempt to back up your claim that I've been trashing him as a traitor and a liar and a narcissist.
You got nothing, and now you're scampering off rather than apologize like an adult.
you said you would "gladly provide links"
Provide them, or you're a liar.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)you are making shit up and got busted, and now you are mad about it. You admitted as much.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)mere minutes later, you refused to provide links.
Very Darrel Issa of you.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014505022#post35 Headed to Venezuela (two days ago)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983957#op On Monday.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The first link IS the revelation if you bothered to read what I posted.
The second link--how is stating he'd be wise to fly to Venezuela a smear?
Third: I am "geek tragedy" not "cali democrat"
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I guess because I linked to the OP when you were the first responder makes the derp strong with me. I'll just accept that and ignore that you were already plotting ways for him to avoid getting captured on Monday.
You are clearly in charge of who is in the derp department if you believe that one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I think the intent is pretty clear from just that handful.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The only one that was before the revelations that he was blabbing about our Chinese hacking was that I said he'd be smart to fly to Venezuela.
You know who also said something similar?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/us/julian-assange-interview
Aerows
(39,961 posts)We hate Julian Assange, too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Venezuela has much better freedom of speech than China and is a democracy.
cali
(114,904 posts)at least initially to a thoughtful, smart and courageous guy is hardly calling him a hero. furthermore, I've said repeatedly over the last few days that this in not about Snowden but the issue of massive overarching surveillance. It's right here on DU.
So no, you are wrong. now return to your blind support for the surveillance state and the President.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)For your edification:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022991146
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2983974
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2991334
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2990668
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2984649
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983958
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)In most of them, it seems you are concerned with corporate control of information (to which I agree with your concern, in fact, I'm pretty pissed). But those links indicate that you are also absolving the government intrusion into our civil liberties by saying, "Look what's happening here!"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The surveillance state depends on corporate control and ownership of users' personal data. This program wouldn't work but for the fact 'ownership' of that data is concentrated in the hands of a small number of massive corporations.
Give individuals more ownership and control over their own data if you want to defeat the invasiveness of the surveillance state.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to the American people about the excesses of our government.
He is not helping the enemy. He is helping us. If an enemy also benefits, the saving grace is that we are helped and better informed. We cannot claim to have a democracy if we don't vote and participate with full knowledge of the truth.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The narcissist thing is almost to be expected.
But, when he starts blabbing stuff to the Chinese in order to ingratiate himself to their regime, he's stepped over a line.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)sorry, it's probably inappropriate to laugh THIS HARD, but MY GAWD, what a gem of a find!
sweet jeebus, it's been a really tough couple days here but this is like a long cool umbrella drink after slogging around in the trenches.
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my little input in post 36 is so boring, compared.
paleotn
(18,799 posts)..what was revealed, not the character of the messenger. He or she could be tea bagging, psycho, nut job on vast amounts of steroids. I don't care. What MATTERS is what was released, the accuracy of it, and whether or not it's good or bad for the country. Everything else, including yours or my opinions of Snowden's character are irrelevant bull shit.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We've seen a few presentations, but we shouldn't accept everything this guy says as true.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are just telling us it's good.
redgreenandblue
(2,096 posts)Do you think spying is ok or not?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,096 posts)Either spying on allies is wrong or it isn't.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Spying against one's own country on behalf of a foreign power is not okay.
He can share a cell with Jonathan Pollard.
redgreenandblue
(2,096 posts)If you are caught spying you get treated as a common criminal, regardless on whose behalf you were spying. Selling secrets to a state is treated as a crime committed by an individual on his or her own behalf. Thus, if Snowden revealed the fact that someone was spying on China, then by definition the people who were doing the spying were simply private citizens committing crimes against China and revealing this is whistle blowing.
Autumn
(45,803 posts)and another rec.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)idea about how many of our rights and liberties are being taken away.
And if we don't recognize and support people like Snowden even fewer people will speak out in the future.
Look at this administration dim record in support of whistle-blowers. It is pathetic.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That is clear as a bell. Some folks want to detract from the issue and make it about personalities.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)what else do the authoritarians and cultists have?
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If it gets us off this ridiculous fixation on his personal life and lets us discuss the real issue at hand, which is the disclosure of a massive government surveillance program on ordinary Americans.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)I really don't care who or why, makes no difference. the bottom line is that its happening and Obama and his administration are the perpetrators.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)pnwmom
(109,388 posts)Snowden's credibility IS an issue, because when he and Greenwald started all this, they were making claims that turned out not to be true -- like the US having direct access into Google's servers.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Who's on first? Who's on second?
Yeah, making it about Snowden is a total red herring.
BainsBane
(54,088 posts)Uncle Joe
(59,676 posts)Thanks for the thread, cali.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Although the sock puppets may disagree.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The personalities of the individuals are totally irrelevant.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)thanks!
leftstreet
(36,200 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Is the surveillance legal and is Snowden legit?
These are both worthy discussions.
zeeland
(247 posts)courts, 99.7 approved. I want more information
This sounds like a rubber stamp court put in place to
pacify the public. These stats weren't available in
2001. The entire surveillance complex stinks to high
heaven.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)~1800 warrants approved by FISA last year.
You'd think a police state would be using its secret rubber stamp court a lot more than 1800 times a year.
zeeland
(247 posts)were approved since 2001?
The following article published in 2005 states 19,000 had been approved up to Dec. 2005.
Does that mean 15,000 have been approved since the beginning of 2006?
Or, if you have a link with details, I'd appreciate reading it.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/19/toobin.otsc/
cali
(114,904 posts)what do you even mean by legit. As for legal, many things, historically, have been legal that were absolutely heinous.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Is the surveillance legal, appropriate and necessary.
Is what Snowden did legal and did he fabricate any part of his story and what are his true motives?
cstanleytech
(26,809 posts)Constitutional?
But then that is why we have SCOTUS to decide if something is constitutional or not and yes sometimes SCOTUS makes rulings we consider wrong like Dred Scott v. Sandford but then that is also why we have the ability to amend the constitution itself.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Neither of them revealed much I didn't already know or suspect and I suspect the motivations and timing of their "revelations".
What this shit-stirring might do is effect a renewed national and international conversation about this OHS and "Patriot Act" crap, and significant change in these programs, either curtailing them or getting rid of them altogether, and maybe a return to more sane and reasonable surveillance parameters.
MrScorpio
(73,693 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,246 posts)lark
(23,775 posts)from one who cares more about policy than personality.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)K&r