Edward Snowden says a report critical to an NSA lawsuit is authentic(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Edward Snowden says a report critical to an NSA lawsuit is authentic
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/03/edward-snowden-nsa-lawsuit-jewel-authentic/
67 comments
Elizabeth Goitein (Brennan Center for Justice):
> The whistleblower laws for intelligence community members pretend that there’s no such thing as agency level misconduct and we know that that’s not the case... If what you’re talking about is official misconduct that has been sanctioned by the agency, then obviously reporting that misconduct to that agency is not going to help. So internal channels are useless for things like torture, warrantless wiretapping, any of those major systemic abuses, like the ones we saw after 9/11.
https://pen.org/sites/default/files/Secret%20Sources%20repor...
> The whistleblower laws for intelligence community members pretend that there’s no such thing as agency level misconduct and we know that that’s not the case... If what you’re talking about is official misconduct that has been sanctioned by the agency, then obviously reporting that misconduct to that agency is not going to help. So internal channels are useless for things like torture, warrantless wiretapping, any of those major systemic abuses, like the ones we saw after 9/11.
https://pen.org/sites/default/files/Secret%20Sources%20repor...
>Was anyone of the US Government criminally charged for this whole thing or they only bothered to charge the guy who exposed the crime?
Laws apply to commoners, not lords.
Laws apply to commoners, not lords.
Q: Why do you think the lords wish to disarm the commoners ?
A : Bullets don't care how much power or money they have.
A : Bullets don't care how much power or money they have.
In the history of the United States, bullets have mostly if not solely been used for the protection of the lords, often by commoners either paid to do it and not caring, or convinced the issue was other commoners.
After all a common thread of US History is this LBJ quip:
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
After all a common thread of US History is this LBJ quip:
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
US history really doesn't have enough time to see it. Not to mention the Bill of Rights enumerated the natural right to self defense to be protected, including being armed well enough to form a militia. ( Military oath calls out enemies foreign and domestic, doesn't say enemies who hold political office are immune )
Look at Japanese history however and you see 100s of years of disarmament.
Look at Japanese history however and you see 100s of years of disarmament.
Look at what those militias have actually been used for.
I agree with your comment (it reminded me of the times the Pinkertons or the deputized sheriffs shot at strikers long ago), but I think that every citizen being armed would be a good guard for the society's freedom, and thus that it would be worth it.
More than guns (or in addition to guns), it is important that people know how their government works and make their support indispensable if a ruler wants to stay in power. In other words, increase the number of "keys" like this YouTuber explains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
What I struggle with is how does one make the leap from being a democracy to being a democracy which protects the rights of minorities? This doesn't have to be a gender or race thing. For example, here in the US we clearly don't do enough to protect incarcerated people from {sexual, physical, mental} abuse (by staff or by other inmates).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
What I struggle with is how does one make the leap from being a democracy to being a democracy which protects the rights of minorities? This doesn't have to be a gender or race thing. For example, here in the US we clearly don't do enough to protect incarcerated people from {sexual, physical, mental} abuse (by staff or by other inmates).
That was part of the idea of the Constitution; the founding fathers knew that uninhibited democracies were a bad idea (even the Greeks experienced some bad things with mob rule) and specifically tried to create a democratic republic restrained by a written set of rules protecting citizens from arbitrary exercise of power by a majority to avoid some of the worst. They lived through quite a few things we are seeing now, but I think a large part of preventing it depends squarely on culture. Having a culture that fundamentally believes in justice and equality will stave off tyranny and oppression, but it doesn't matter what laws you have in a society that doesn't value those. When I took Chinese philosophy there was a philosopher (can't remember which one) who basically said that it is good men who make the laws, but laws without good men will not be enforced.
> specifically tried to create a democratic republic restrained by a written set of rules protecting citizens from arbitrary exercise of power by a majority to avoid some of the worst
They tried to create one with no power for anyone but white male landowners and with provisions that made changing that extremely difficult.
They tried to create one with no power for anyone but white male landowners and with provisions that made changing that extremely difficult.
> What I struggle with is how does one make the leap from being a democracy to being a democracy which protects the rights of minorities?
The Federalist Papers deal with both the Tyranny of the Majority, as well as the Tyranny of the Minority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
The Federalist Papers deal with both the Tyranny of the Majority, as well as the Tyranny of the Minority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
The US is a Constitutional Republic... why everyone continues to conflate this with democracy I do not understand. The states election process does not define the Federal govt.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
A constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. You do not understand because you misunderstand.
A constitutional republic is where the people delegate certain powers, enumerated in a constitution, to the government. The Constitution of the United States defines three branches of government, the Legislative, Judicial and Executive. Ideally each branch serves to check the unrestrained power of the other branches (or two branches check the unrestrained power of the third.) That's what makes the revelations about mass logging of emails by the NSA, part of the Executive branch, so important.
> A constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy.
This is not generally true in the abstract, but the specific form of most Constitutional republics, including the US, is basically representative democracy, though sometimes (as in the US) with skewed voting power, and democratic values (coupled with fear of the volatility and excesses of direct or unconstrained democracy) was fairly central to the founding ideology of the United States.
This is not generally true in the abstract, but the specific form of most Constitutional republics, including the US, is basically representative democracy, though sometimes (as in the US) with skewed voting power, and democratic values (coupled with fear of the volatility and excesses of direct or unconstrained democracy) was fairly central to the founding ideology of the United States.
No part of the US federal government is representative at this point. The Senate isn't by design, the house isn't because it's been capped, the presidency isn't by design.
" A constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy. "
Read this over and over until you believe you can simply change the meaning of words
Read this over and over until you believe you can simply change the meaning of words
I've found that people who attempt to make this argument have an agenda. Here is an article that references several founders using both terms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
The difference I see.
All democratic governments today allow decisions to be made even over the dissent of a minority of voters.
Whereas the (Republic) Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect (or are supposed to protect) the individual rights.
The individual being the smallest minority.
This is the difference I see. It is a small difference with a huge impact.
John Locke
[Civic power] can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power used by government to protect property is nothing except the natural power of each man resigned into the hands of the community…and it is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural right than the self-help to which each man is naturally entitled.[1]:532
All democratic governments today allow decisions to be made even over the dissent of a minority of voters.
Whereas the (Republic) Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect (or are supposed to protect) the individual rights.
The individual being the smallest minority.
This is the difference I see. It is a small difference with a huge impact.
John Locke
[Civic power] can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power used by government to protect property is nothing except the natural power of each man resigned into the hands of the community…and it is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural right than the self-help to which each man is naturally entitled.[1]:532
Because a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive, unless you are talking about direct democracy specifically.
China is a republic but not a democracy. Canada is a democracy and not a republic.
China is a republic but not a democracy. Canada is a democracy and not a republic.
> I think that every citizen being armed would be a good guard for the society's freedom, and thus that it would be worth it.
That would be a pretty big change from them dynamiting and firebombing Greenwood, or taking over and thrashing Malheur.
Somehow I'm doubtful. That's just not how America has used guns ever. And that's not how it uses guns to this day.
That would be a pretty big change from them dynamiting and firebombing Greenwood, or taking over and thrashing Malheur.
Somehow I'm doubtful. That's just not how America has used guns ever. And that's not how it uses guns to this day.
This isn't going to earn us any friends, but I agree with the contention, at least, that there is something to the theory that we'd be far less likely to suffer endless criminal war (as is the case now) on the part of the military-industrial complex, if we were indeed all armed of our own accord and thus responsible for our own defence at an individual level.
It does, at least, put a citizen on equal footing when it comes to understanding the responsibility of using a weapon, at all, to defend something or someone. There are many who say that responsibility is too heavy, or too hard, or should not be born by the individual .. but in this day and age there are too many well-armed warriors with the ability to destroy the very weak, and destroy they do. Daily.
One of the key means by which war-fighters get away with atrocity is when the weaker, non-armed civilians from which they must recruit and supply themselves, allow them to do so without oversight.
An armed citizenry defuses the source of military-industrial corruption: the secrecy by which the effects of war are kept from a weak-willed, easily manipulated, public.
If we knew what it was to fight a war, we'd be doing less of it. As it stands now though, the people of the nations of the western coalition are living in a putrid fantasy as to what their military are doing, in their name. And seem to be fine with it.
I wonder if it were so easily placed on the board, as it were, if we had a means of reigning in our military masters that was truly effective. In place of technological war-fighting might, it seems the only thing we have left is the light of truth on their secrets.
So, while the notion of 'arming all the citizens' is an extreme, there may be something less extreme in the idea of 'uncover all military-industrial secrets at all costs', which is .. after all .. kind of a similar basis by which one might defuse the complex.
It does, at least, put a citizen on equal footing when it comes to understanding the responsibility of using a weapon, at all, to defend something or someone. There are many who say that responsibility is too heavy, or too hard, or should not be born by the individual .. but in this day and age there are too many well-armed warriors with the ability to destroy the very weak, and destroy they do. Daily.
One of the key means by which war-fighters get away with atrocity is when the weaker, non-armed civilians from which they must recruit and supply themselves, allow them to do so without oversight.
An armed citizenry defuses the source of military-industrial corruption: the secrecy by which the effects of war are kept from a weak-willed, easily manipulated, public.
If we knew what it was to fight a war, we'd be doing less of it. As it stands now though, the people of the nations of the western coalition are living in a putrid fantasy as to what their military are doing, in their name. And seem to be fine with it.
I wonder if it were so easily placed on the board, as it were, if we had a means of reigning in our military masters that was truly effective. In place of technological war-fighting might, it seems the only thing we have left is the light of truth on their secrets.
So, while the notion of 'arming all the citizens' is an extreme, there may be something less extreme in the idea of 'uncover all military-industrial secrets at all costs', which is .. after all .. kind of a similar basis by which one might defuse the complex.
Yeah, your gun is very helpful against trained soldiers with hi tech equipements and drones. And not harmful at all in your daily life.
[deleted]
Seems to work for the Afghan people. In my daily life a gun does little. People sometimes use it for good or for evil.
Like any other tool
Like any other tool
They don't have a gun, they have army supplies regularly provided by other interested party, with additional military and tactical training.
You don't stand a chain with your desert eagle if the marines decide you should go down.
You don't stand a chain with your desert eagle if the marines decide you should go down.
> Was anyone of the US Government criminally charged for this whole thing or they only bothered to charge the guy who exposed the crime?
For the same reason no one was charged for hiroshima or nagasaki. Or the illegal iraq war. It was sanctioned by the government.
For there to be criminal charges, someone in the government has to be willing to prosecute. Good luck with that.
For the same reason no one was charged for hiroshima or nagasaki. Or the illegal iraq war. It was sanctioned by the government.
For there to be criminal charges, someone in the government has to be willing to prosecute. Good luck with that.
He stole credentials to download and give data en masse. This wasn't a guy exposing a single program. It was a guy just releasing everything he could get his hands on.
We're talking about Snowden, not Manning.
Snowden as well. He promised he destroyed all the data that had nothing to do with internal spying programs when he landed in China but before he defected to Russia. And he must be telling the truth because he said he's telling the truth.
He didn't defect to Russia. He was on a flight that had a layover in Moscow airport, but the US revoked his passport, so he got stranded there until Russia eventually granted him asylum.
His passport was revoked while he was in Hong Kong. Somehow he was allowed to board the flight to Moscow with a revoked passport, but not the flight from Moscow.
>Somehow he was allowed to board the flight to Moscow with a revoked passport
Your passport doesn't magically cease to work after someone somewhere says it's been revoked.
Your passport doesn't magically cease to work after someone somewhere says it's been revoked.
You're arguing a red herring, and I don't know if you're doing it purposly or what. Let's set aside the technical IT details of how passport checks work, rather focus on the point: the Hong Kong and Russian authorities knew he wasn't allowed to board that plane.
>Hong Kong and Russian authorities knew he wasn't allowed to board that plane.
AFAIK there was no HK warrant or even an Interpol notice issued for Snowden at the time. Why would he not have been allowed to board that plane?
AFAIK there was no HK warrant or even an Interpol notice issued for Snowden at the time. Why would he not have been allowed to board that plane?
Here's the HK press release: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201306/23/P201306230476....
So clearly there was an arrest warrant issued by US with a request to HK authorities to detain Snowden. You may choose to believe the excuse put out by HK/Chinese authorities that US government filled out the paperwork incorrectly but the State Department, and pretty much anybody I've ever read, has rejected that explanation.
For boarding and plane and clearing security and entry into Moscow, you made an absolutely ludicrous assertion that "Your passport doesn't magically cease to work after someone somewhere says it's been revoked." - Uh huh, there goes our entire security infrastructure ... Is it your contention that neither Hong Kong authorities nor the Russians were aware that Snowden's passport was revoked?
You sound like you're bending over backwards to try to prevent Snowden from being seen as what he is, a traitor to his country who defected to a geopolitical rival after stealing millions of documents (the vast majority of which have NOTHING to do with domestic espionage programs).
So clearly there was an arrest warrant issued by US with a request to HK authorities to detain Snowden. You may choose to believe the excuse put out by HK/Chinese authorities that US government filled out the paperwork incorrectly but the State Department, and pretty much anybody I've ever read, has rejected that explanation.
For boarding and plane and clearing security and entry into Moscow, you made an absolutely ludicrous assertion that "Your passport doesn't magically cease to work after someone somewhere says it's been revoked." - Uh huh, there goes our entire security infrastructure ... Is it your contention that neither Hong Kong authorities nor the Russians were aware that Snowden's passport was revoked?
You sound like you're bending over backwards to try to prevent Snowden from being seen as what he is, a traitor to his country who defected to a geopolitical rival after stealing millions of documents (the vast majority of which have NOTHING to do with domestic espionage programs).
>He was on a flight that had a layover in Moscow airport, but the US revoked his passport, so he got stranded there until Russia eventually granted him asylum.
Not quite. As another poster stated, Snowden had his passport revoked a day before he cleared security in Hong Kong and boarded the plane to Moscow. The decision to allow him to board the plane could only have come from the top of Russian leadership. US also issued a request to detain him and again, the decision by Hong Kong and Chinese authorities to ignore this request could only have come from high up in the respective leadership chain.
His entire time Hong Kong is mired in controversy and implicates him as a defector (either planned or spur of the moment) - for example his visit to Russian consulate (with Putin himself acknowledging that Snowden met with Russian diplomats). Wikipedia has a good write-up [1].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Hong_Kong
Not quite. As another poster stated, Snowden had his passport revoked a day before he cleared security in Hong Kong and boarded the plane to Moscow. The decision to allow him to board the plane could only have come from the top of Russian leadership. US also issued a request to detain him and again, the decision by Hong Kong and Chinese authorities to ignore this request could only have come from high up in the respective leadership chain.
His entire time Hong Kong is mired in controversy and implicates him as a defector (either planned or spur of the moment) - for example his visit to Russian consulate (with Putin himself acknowledging that Snowden met with Russian diplomats). Wikipedia has a good write-up [1].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Hong_Kong
Maybe Snowden was worth more to Russia by not being a traitor. Consider:
* Most of the secrets were probably already known by well running spying organizations of big countries. They have their own real spies working in there, and what Snowden revealed was for a big part already suspected by many. Snowden has demonstrated the smoking gun to the planet, but a lot of people noticed the smell of the corpse before that.
* USA=Bad is a claim that sticks beter if the messenger is a knight in shining armor.
* Russia has a lot more room to mess around if the would-be police of the world iis caught with its pants down every other week.
* Russia is very good at sowing distrust between their enemies. It seems a main point of their current defence against NATO.
* Most of the secrets were probably already known by well running spying organizations of big countries. They have their own real spies working in there, and what Snowden revealed was for a big part already suspected by many. Snowden has demonstrated the smoking gun to the planet, but a lot of people noticed the smell of the corpse before that.
* USA=Bad is a claim that sticks beter if the messenger is a knight in shining armor.
* Russia has a lot more room to mess around if the would-be police of the world iis caught with its pants down every other week.
* Russia is very good at sowing distrust between their enemies. It seems a main point of their current defence against NATO.
>revealed was for a big part already suspected by many
The problem is that the details on the existence of internal spy programs were a very small part of the cache of data he stole. Initial estimates range from 50,000 to 200,000 stolen documents (with later revisions of the estimates jumping to 1.7 million) with no real idea of the extent of the theft.
Here's how Army General Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) characterized the theft: "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."
We know Snowden took those documents with him to China. We don't know what he did with them. We know he was monitored by Chinese, Russian and American intelligence agencies in Hong Kong - which should raise alarm bells because there is no way that neither Russian nor Chinese agencies would simply pass up an opportunity to exfiltrate this data for themselves. Snowden said that he destroyed all those files, though his story has changed several times and you simply have to trust him at his word ... which raises the question, why did he steal that data (not talking about domestic surveillance programs) in the first place. I mean, he sure as hell could have simply given it to the Russians, or had it stolen by another intelligence agency.
The problem is that the details on the existence of internal spy programs were a very small part of the cache of data he stole. Initial estimates range from 50,000 to 200,000 stolen documents (with later revisions of the estimates jumping to 1.7 million) with no real idea of the extent of the theft.
Here's how Army General Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) characterized the theft: "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."
We know Snowden took those documents with him to China. We don't know what he did with them. We know he was monitored by Chinese, Russian and American intelligence agencies in Hong Kong - which should raise alarm bells because there is no way that neither Russian nor Chinese agencies would simply pass up an opportunity to exfiltrate this data for themselves. Snowden said that he destroyed all those files, though his story has changed several times and you simply have to trust him at his word ... which raises the question, why did he steal that data (not talking about domestic surveillance programs) in the first place. I mean, he sure as hell could have simply given it to the Russians, or had it stolen by another intelligence agency.
True of course.
But Snowden was not the only person having this access. What about all of his colleagues? If a country manages to bribe or blackmail even one of these people to smuggle out an USB stick, you have exactly the same situation.
Given the resources available to China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc..., the sheer number of available targets, and the invisibility of the attack, what are the odds of this kind of theft not happening? And that's without all the other ways for them to get reasonable estimates of these things.
But Snowden was not the only person having this access. What about all of his colleagues? If a country manages to bribe or blackmail even one of these people to smuggle out an USB stick, you have exactly the same situation.
Given the resources available to China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc..., the sheer number of available targets, and the invisibility of the attack, what are the odds of this kind of theft not happening? And that's without all the other ways for them to get reasonable estimates of these things.
I'm not sure the point you're making. Are you saying that Snowden's theft isn't that big of a deal because other agencies must have already hacked the NSA and gotten all that data?
I say that Russia is smart enough to weigh both options. Either access to data they already had, or putting a wedge between their enemies by amassive anti USA pr campaign. Or even a mix of both.
And yes, also that the theft isn't as big a deal as it seems.
And yes, also that the theft isn't as big a deal as it seems.
What crime are we talking about? Because the surveillance programs have been sanctioned and overseen by all three branches of government. In other words, they were perfectly legal government programs.
So Snowden didn't actually whistleblow any crime. You may argue about the public right to know about these programs, and I would be friendly to that view, but Snowden stole much much much more than that, took it to China and asked us to trust him when he said he destroyed that data (though he changed his story quite a few times)... that's why he is a traitor.
So Snowden didn't actually whistleblow any crime. You may argue about the public right to know about these programs, and I would be friendly to that view, but Snowden stole much much much more than that, took it to China and asked us to trust him when he said he destroyed that data (though he changed his story quite a few times)... that's why he is a traitor.
Take a wild guess.
The Government doesn't admit it did anything illegal, any court cases trying to show otherwise will take a decade as this one has, and currently the only one I'm aware of was dismissed as the courts ruled they could not prove damage had been done.
Though, even if found to be violating the law I find it hard to imagine any prosecutors trying individuals involved.
Though, even if found to be violating the law I find it hard to imagine any prosecutors trying individuals involved.
> Though, even if found to be violating the law I find it hard to imagine any prosecutors trying individuals involved.
Well except for Snowden of course.
And frankly Clapper's testimony to Congress was obviously perjury. The prosecution of only Snowden is rank hypocracy.
Well except for Snowden of course.
And frankly Clapper's testimony to Congress was obviously perjury. The prosecution of only Snowden is rank hypocracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/politics/nsa-telephone-metada...
But you're right about not prosecuting individuals.
But you're right about not prosecuting individuals.
Germany had something similar: a fact-finding committee tried to figure out what to do about NSA and our local spies spying on Germans local and abroad. Pro privacy parliamentarians wanted to rely heavily on Snowden docs, ruling party and anti-privacy required an in-person interview in Germany of Snowden to admit the docs as evidence.
Of course tthey didn't wwant to guarantee Snowdens freedom while here, so that interview never happened and the docs were ignored.
I bet that's going to be the NSAs play here too
Of course tthey didn't wwant to guarantee Snowdens freedom while here, so that interview never happened and the docs were ignored.
I bet that's going to be the NSAs play here too
The thing is that people are no nearer to understanding why it was that this spying on the general public had to happen.
Capitalism - and any other system - has to have bogeymen and terrorism as a fear, the thinking being that anything outside the system is a fate worse than death and therefore the system, in this case capitalism as we know it is better than the alternatives. We all know there aren't any 'al-qaeda' terrorists really, it certainly is not necessary to monitor everyone's phone just because of that.
Going through the courts to discern whether these Stasi style systems were/are constitutional or not is noble and good on the EFF for doing these things. However we have not acknowledged why these things had to happen, we still go along with the 'al-qaeda terrorist fear' meme.
The point of surveillance and letting everyone know that they are under surveillance is to stop people communicating in a way tantamount to dissent. The Catholic Church and the Stasi had these things in place, not to root out protestants or Western spies, it was always to keep people in line with their system of rule. When it comes to our own Western surveillance we somehow believe the authorities that it is to catch the terrorists, a noble cause that nobody could possibly argue with. Yet really it is to keep people in line and not dissenting.
In the Bush years the powers-that-be were genuinely concerned they might have a Berlin Wall moment where people just see through the lies and decide not to stand shoulder to shoulder waving flags.
Their fears were seriously unfounded though, people really were deeply wedded to the system to the point of being indoctrinated and brainwashed. No matter how feeble the phantom enemy was people went along with it, it sold newspapers and meant people didn't even dream of getting organised in some revolutionary way. Occupy Wall Street was about it, a very damp squib.
Whether the details of the mass surveillance infrastructure were technically constitutional or not does not answer the bigger question regarding what the Bush government were so scared of.
Capitalism - and any other system - has to have bogeymen and terrorism as a fear, the thinking being that anything outside the system is a fate worse than death and therefore the system, in this case capitalism as we know it is better than the alternatives. We all know there aren't any 'al-qaeda' terrorists really, it certainly is not necessary to monitor everyone's phone just because of that.
Going through the courts to discern whether these Stasi style systems were/are constitutional or not is noble and good on the EFF for doing these things. However we have not acknowledged why these things had to happen, we still go along with the 'al-qaeda terrorist fear' meme.
The point of surveillance and letting everyone know that they are under surveillance is to stop people communicating in a way tantamount to dissent. The Catholic Church and the Stasi had these things in place, not to root out protestants or Western spies, it was always to keep people in line with their system of rule. When it comes to our own Western surveillance we somehow believe the authorities that it is to catch the terrorists, a noble cause that nobody could possibly argue with. Yet really it is to keep people in line and not dissenting.
In the Bush years the powers-that-be were genuinely concerned they might have a Berlin Wall moment where people just see through the lies and decide not to stand shoulder to shoulder waving flags.
Their fears were seriously unfounded though, people really were deeply wedded to the system to the point of being indoctrinated and brainwashed. No matter how feeble the phantom enemy was people went along with it, it sold newspapers and meant people didn't even dream of getting organised in some revolutionary way. Occupy Wall Street was about it, a very damp squib.
Whether the details of the mass surveillance infrastructure were technically constitutional or not does not answer the bigger question regarding what the Bush government were so scared of.
I don't think this situation requires any level of intentional conspiracy. Intelligence agencies always want to know more secrets, law enforcement wants their job to be easier, and digital media were trivial to wiretap since early beginnings. Surveillance systems like NSA's seem like something that would naturally evolve - and accelerate post 9/11, as there was suddenly lots of money available to anyone uttering the words "fighting terrorism" and "national security".
Pretty much. You build an mowner, it's going to mown. If you give it more horse power, it's going to mown more. If you make it autonomous, it's going to mown everthing it can. The mowner is nor good or bad, but it still hurts if your foot is the way and the safeguards were badly designed.
I am not sure that analogy is that helpful.
Did the NSA catch hordes of these evil al-qaeda types with their dragnet? No. Were any of these card-carrying al-qaeda terror operatives given due process? No.
There are logical fallacies that we must endeavour to see through. Did the spy dragnet keep the al-qaeda menace at bay? Originally there were supposed to be tens of thousands of al-qaeda terror operatives in sleeper cells. They said the same about the Russians a generation earlier. It wasn't so.
There may be fancy computers at Fort Mead but these still cost money. Money that could have been spent on infrastructure that benefited the citizens. There is opportunity cost, many people have actually died in collapsed bridges since the NSA went crazy.
Did the NSA catch hordes of these evil al-qaeda types with their dragnet? No. Were any of these card-carrying al-qaeda terror operatives given due process? No.
There are logical fallacies that we must endeavour to see through. Did the spy dragnet keep the al-qaeda menace at bay? Originally there were supposed to be tens of thousands of al-qaeda terror operatives in sleeper cells. They said the same about the Russians a generation earlier. It wasn't so.
There may be fancy computers at Fort Mead but these still cost money. Money that could have been spent on infrastructure that benefited the citizens. There is opportunity cost, many people have actually died in collapsed bridges since the NSA went crazy.
I don't know if I've ever heard of the NSA having any good effect on the USA, just always negative. Always leaks about how everything they're doing is illegal. There have still been terrorist attacks and mass shootings all around the country since it's inception. I agree with your point above that it's probably likely that these agencies are more so there to track and crush domestic and foreign dissent (and I think it's intentional, see COINTELPRO).
That money definitely could've been spent on infrastructure that benefited the actual citizens of this country and actually saved lives. Unfortunately a great part of American culture is pure jingoism and war propaganda, so nothing changes.
That money definitely could've been spent on infrastructure that benefited the actual citizens of this country and actually saved lives. Unfortunately a great part of American culture is pure jingoism and war propaganda, so nothing changes.
I forgot about COINTELPRO. Thanks for reminding me. That is still going on today, so useful to know.
I do find it interesting how people find reasons to believe a lie, the lie being that the post 9/11 spying wasn't on the domestic population just to make sure there was no dissent. With a population that believes the lie then things are kind of doomed. A dark age happens. People find justifications to believe it ain't so. In a unipolar world this becomes a lot more interesting. In previous times there was an 'other' out there, the people in Germany could tune into propaganda from the West, this propaganda could be true facts and it would undermine the regime, Nazi or Stasi if too many people were in on it. In a unipolar world there isn't this possibility.
There is also a trust problem between government and people. In former times gentlemen didn't read each other's mail. Acceptance of otherwise is a betrayal of trust. You have to have good reason to snoop. What was the good reason and what was the excuse in the post 9/11 world? Fear.
I do find it interesting how people find reasons to believe a lie, the lie being that the post 9/11 spying wasn't on the domestic population just to make sure there was no dissent. With a population that believes the lie then things are kind of doomed. A dark age happens. People find justifications to believe it ain't so. In a unipolar world this becomes a lot more interesting. In previous times there was an 'other' out there, the people in Germany could tune into propaganda from the West, this propaganda could be true facts and it would undermine the regime, Nazi or Stasi if too many people were in on it. In a unipolar world there isn't this possibility.
There is also a trust problem between government and people. In former times gentlemen didn't read each other's mail. Acceptance of otherwise is a betrayal of trust. You have to have good reason to snoop. What was the good reason and what was the excuse in the post 9/11 world? Fear.
I agree. We have a super mowner in the third floor of the USA building. It's a great mowner. But it's very damaging to the living room.
legal question: How can Snowden submit a declaration while he is effectively considered a legal enemy of the state?
> while he is effectively considered a legal enemy of the state?
We don’t really describe people as enemies of the state in America. Snowden is accused of certain crimes, and has the right to communicate with legal counsel. Such counsel could provide this attestation to a court.
We don’t really describe people as enemies of the state in America. Snowden is accused of certain crimes, and has the right to communicate with legal counsel. Such counsel could provide this attestation to a court.
A person (and other entities) can be legally considered an enemy of the state if they engage in 'hostilities' towards the US per 50 USCS § 2204. Although I think this would include people like Osama Bin Laden rather than Edward Snowden.
Sorry I didn’t mean to offend. I thought that was the correct term. I think I asked the question incorrectly too. It’s more will a court recognise his attestation while charges stand against him. I’d have thought his charges would hold special status as I though he was accused of treason.
Innocent until proven guilty.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/4573149344...
Were he to try to return to US soil, I'm not sure Snowden would be able to rely on that being much more than a legal technicality. Especially with the current Russian climate.
He has enemies within the state department, which amounts to the same thing, and any public trial would be at best politically charged.
Were he to try to return to US soil, I'm not sure Snowden would be able to rely on that being much more than a legal technicality. Especially with the current Russian climate.
He has enemies within the state department, which amounts to the same thing, and any public trial would be at best politically charged.
That's orthogonal, but yeah, whistleblowers aren't very well protected. They're often still charged with laws aimed against spies, which is ridiculous. The state's aim in these cases is to set an example, and avoid people being inspired to do the same. (My 'favorite' example is John Kiriakou - the only person (I'm aware of) to go to prison for the US' torture program. The one who publicized it.)
Was anyone of the US Government criminally charged for this whole thing or they only bothered to charge the guy who exposed the crime?