Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snowden, *by law*, needed to do what he did. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)75. Ellsberg
"Sadly, as Daniel Ellsberg points out, some other bits of the the Constitution are routinely ignored by this White House, such as the right to due process and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."
...didn't flea the country and never had make comments denying that he turned over information to foreign governments:
Snowden Says The Government Still Has No Idea What He Gave To Reporters
Edward Snowden snuck a little jab at the government into his appearance at SXSW Interactive on Monday.
Asked if it was just a matter of time before the government could decrypt even the best encryption, the former National Security Agency contractor held up his own case as evidence that encryption works to protect data from surveillance.
"The United States government has assembled a massive investigative team" to look into him and his leak of top secret NSA documents, Snowden said. "And they still have no idea what documents were provided to the journalists, what they have, what they don't have. Because encryption works."
Snowden also suggested that encryption has kept the documents he leaked out of the hands of foreign governments, like Russia and China.
<...>
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/snowden-sxsw-documents-encryption
Edward Snowden snuck a little jab at the government into his appearance at SXSW Interactive on Monday.
Asked if it was just a matter of time before the government could decrypt even the best encryption, the former National Security Agency contractor held up his own case as evidence that encryption works to protect data from surveillance.
"The United States government has assembled a massive investigative team" to look into him and his leak of top secret NSA documents, Snowden said. "And they still have no idea what documents were provided to the journalists, what they have, what they don't have. Because encryption works."
Snowden also suggested that encryption has kept the documents he leaked out of the hands of foreign governments, like Russia and China.
<...>
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/snowden-sxsw-documents-encryption
Direct quote:
Ed: Lets put it this way - the United States government has assembled a massive investigation team into me personally, into my work with journalists and they still have no idea you know what - what documents were provided to the journalists, what they have, what they dont have. Because of encryption works. Now the only way to get around that, is to have a computer that is so massive and so powerful you can work the entire universe into the energy power into this decryption machine and they still might not be able to do it. Or you break into the computer and try to steal their keys and bypass the encryption. That happens today and that happens every day. That is the way around it.
<...>
Ed: If I could follow up on that I would say the US governments investigation supports that. We have both public and private acknowledgements that they know at this point the Russian government, the Chinese government any other government has possession of any of this information. And that would be easy for them to find out. Remember these are the guys that are spying on everyone in the world. They have got human intelligence assets embedded in these governments. They have got electronic signal assets in these governments. If suddenly the Chinese government knew everything the NSA is doing we would notice the changes. We would notice the changes, we would see official communicating and our assets will tell us hey somewhere they have a warehouse they put you know, a thousand of their most skilled researchers in there. That has never happened and it is never going to happen.
http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-full-transcription-and-video
<...>
Ed: If I could follow up on that I would say the US governments investigation supports that. We have both public and private acknowledgements that they know at this point the Russian government, the Chinese government any other government has possession of any of this information. And that would be easy for them to find out. Remember these are the guys that are spying on everyone in the world. They have got human intelligence assets embedded in these governments. They have got electronic signal assets in these governments. If suddenly the Chinese government knew everything the NSA is doing we would notice the changes. We would notice the changes, we would see official communicating and our assets will tell us hey somewhere they have a warehouse they put you know, a thousand of their most skilled researchers in there. That has never happened and it is never going to happen.
http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-full-transcription-and-video
Snowden: The U.S. Government has no idea what I gave to journalists in Russia and China, but encryption has kept the leaked documents out of the hands of foreign governments, like Russia and China, whose media are state-owned.
Genius!
Ellsberg stayed, fought and prevailed in getting the charges dropped.
Snowden put himself in the position of having to plea bargain based on his actions that were outside the scope of simply leaking information about domestic surveillance.
Snowden Inc. ("The strategy: Attention = bargaining power"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825#post188
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This bulk metadata collection issue will eventually go to the Supreme Court
Cali_Democrat
Mar 2014
#1
Also, we've known about this kind of bulk metadata collection since 2006:
Cali_Democrat
Mar 2014
#10
Okay, strange but everyone that I know, even the republicans are aware it has been going on.
Autumn
Mar 2014
#72
How so? You posted that you are still surprised that people act like this is a new revelation
Autumn
Mar 2014
#123
We often know about crimes for years, murder eg, bank robbery, does it make them any less
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#66
SCOTUS ruled on the use of landline metadata in one case involving telephone harassment in 1979.
LeftyMom
Mar 2014
#35
Different facts. Could distinguish the current NSA practice and result in a very different ruling.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#36
I think that our conservative Supreme Court might well distinguish Smith v. Maryland.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#38
If the data belongs to the phone company, then the service should be free. Plus they
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#74
The suspect was an individual suspected of robbery, a criminal offense. That is suspicion. Otherwise
neverforget
Mar 2014
#96
So putting a pen register in 1979 on a single line is now the same as gathering metadata
neverforget
Mar 2014
#129
I remind everyone that at one time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#112
A database of the metadata of a huge number of Americans is a political tool.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#111
You mean the 'group' warrants that allowed the government access to millions of people's 'affects'?
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#61
I read my privacy agreement with Verizon. Have you read these agreements? Nowhere did it say
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#71
Who is paying for it? My money says, since the SC also ruled that money is speech, that that data
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#76
Please, do not insult the intelligence of the people who know when they are being bamboozled.
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#91
What did Verizon Customers do to justify a warrant to gain access to their accounts?
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#69
Distraction, thread hijacking, propaganda: I'd like to know if you know the definitions
Corruption Inc
Mar 2014
#4
Re-framing the OP about an oath, distraction, propaganda: do you know the definitions?
Corruption Inc
Mar 2014
#9
I know it's hard when one's "hero" holds up Russia as a protector of human rights. n/t
ProSense
Mar 2014
#19
You actually posted your response about how much you "despise" Prosense in this thread
Number23
Mar 2014
#31
I agree with Snowden that he was keeping his oath to uphold the Constitution when he
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#39
Bookmarking this reponse--note that not a single pro-Snowden poster can touch this.....nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#103
Okay...what makes you think that these programs will produce a distinguishable case from
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#104
Just wait until members of the Supreme Court find that they have been spied upon.
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#114
Please give some examples of the large print of the Constitution giving and the small print taking
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#41
The large print being the actual Constitution and the small print being the interpretation thereof
Fumesucker
Mar 2014
#46
But..but..that damned 4th Amendment and common decency are sooo 18th century.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#18
Snowden would probably respond that his allegiance to the Constitution supersedes and superseded
JDPriestly
Mar 2014
#42
The Nuremberg trials established that "following orders" is not a valid defense.
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#50
I don't think you can count on anything like that from SCOTUS in the near future:
struggle4progress
Mar 2014
#45
And now knowing that the intelligence community spies on Congress, what kind of action will we get?
Scuba
Mar 2014
#48
He's in great shape then: he can just come back home, and his lawyer will win
struggle4progress
Mar 2014
#44
The NSA gave raw intelligence that included US domestic phone calls to Israel.
OnyxCollie
Mar 2014
#100
Unfortunately, the Constitution means only what the people who ignore it say it means.
LuvNewcastle
Mar 2014
#92
suppose we find out? you suppose the NSA/CIA/FBI have been sitting on their collective nuts?
frylock
Mar 2014
#135
So he didn't actually take Oath of Office (i.e., Appointment Affadavit)?
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2014
#117
The article, which is badly in need of an editor, annoyingly never answers that particular question
BeyondGeography
Mar 2014
#128
He must have taken his interpretation of the Constitution and omitting the parts in which he did not
Thinkingabout
Mar 2014
#141