Hopefully, the detente with Russia puts Edward Snowden in play

[agent00f]

None of this was his call to make. He put a lot of lives, careers and assets at risk just to satiate his ego. If he had a serious problem with the gathering of data on Americans he could've only focused on that. BTW, he wasn't the first to make noise about this. However, unlike them, he put to light everything. It was wrong and wrong. Fact is, it's been 3 years since this cockneck did what he did and Americans, by and large, don't give two squirts of piss. Neither do our allies. Coming into office on January 20 will be a government that will be far more aggressive in dealing with our enemies than anyone here can imagine. The American people have spoken and they just don't care. Assholes like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning should be used for target practice.

And before you start calling me (or those like me )a Nazi or whatever remember that Nazis came from the same liberal strain that has caused so much terror in the world. The only people that care are the sanctimonious, disgusting liberals who hate everything this country stands for. These are the same liberals throughout history who like to impose their will onto others, whether it be via eugenics or the Holocaust or the Great Leap forward. You're all the same

Just a heads up that the nazis & friends were the ultra-nationalists; you know, loved their country enough to do anything, just like trumpsters.

 

[blankslate]

People who are willing to give up essential freedoms in exchange for security deserve neither....

I am disgusted by the argument that Snowden did a bad thing by revealing violations of the constitution...

No he was protecting it against people who were subverting it.


_____________

 

[Dari]

To satiate his ego? Really? If you saw that both American and British intelligence agencies were conducting excessively broad surveillance in systems that were designed to avoid as much accountability as possible, what would you do? Report it to a higher-up who at best will be prevented from sharing it with the public it affects, or at worst will try to sweep it under the rug? The whole issue is that the NSA, GCHQ and other agencies set up massively intrusive spying programs in complete secrecy -- Americans and Brits couldn't object because they weren't allowed to know about it.

And yeah, sure, people don't care about it... so little that a bipartisan congressional effort passed limitations on the Patriot Act (the USA Freedom Act) in direct response to Snowden's leaks. So little that the EU launched a full-on investigation into NSA spying on its parliament. So little that there's substantial opposition to the UK's "Snooper's Charter."

No, I'm not calling you a Nazi, and Nazism did not stem from liberals. I'm honestly laughing that you'd even consider that, given that "liberal" with a lower-case L means social freedom and equality. It sounds to me like you simply load that term with everything you consider bad, Rush Limbaugh-style. It's easier to scapegoat than to take an intelligent, complex approach to political theory, isn't it?

Patriotism to me means upholding real freedom, not just the lip service you get in political speeches and flag-waving parades. It means questioning authority and defying it when it's clear you have no viable legal options -- that's literally how the US came to be. It's cowards who mindlessly tout the rule of law and gleefully call for the murder of people who question that law.

Do you really think Snowden was the ONLY person that saw this mega apparatus? No, thousands upon thousands knew what was going on and had no problem with it. IMHO, it was for the better good. It's not like the major customers of the NSA (namely the FBI and CIA) are going out of their way to trample upon your freedom. Most of these programs were looking out. And if they were looking in, it was at a specific group. The fact that Americans got swept up in it was unintended. So, yes, Snowden did it for his ego. If you want to go ahead and denigrate those that had no issue with these programs, go ahead. But some of these very same people gave their life for you, often without the public knowing who they were. Again, the American public has had three years to digest his outing and, if anything, the government is doubling down on these programs by legalizing what was legally suspect and investing more in these programs. The private sector is also on board. However, our enemies are onto us. Luckily, these revelations have them looking in the wrong places.

 

[WelshBloke]

And if they were looking in, it was at a specific group. The fact that Americans got swept up in it was unintended.

Bullshit. If ever it got tricky politically for you guys to spy on yourselves you just asked us to do it for you.

 

[Dari]

Bullshit. If ever it got tricky politically for you guys to spy on yourselves you just asked us to do it for you.

Exactly. So the purpose of these programs were not Stasi-like. They existed for intelligence gathering against our enemies, domestic or foreign. If certain laws got in the way of seeing what certain parties were up to, there were convenient ways around them (but not to usurp them or disregard them). So, respect for the spirit of the law was always there even if respect for the letter of the law wasn't. The former is more important, IMHO.Remember, the people running these programs are fellow Americans. They share the same morals and ethics as you and I. They mean you no harm.

 

[Commodus]

Do you really think Snowden was the ONLY person that saw this mega apparatus? No, thousands upon thousands knew what was going on and had no problem with it. IMHO, it was for the better good. It's not like the major customers of the NSA (namely the FBI and CIA) are going out of their way to trample upon your freedom. Most of these programs were looking out. And if they were looking in, it was at a specific group. The fact that Americans got swept up in it was unintended. So, yes, Snowden did it for his ego. If you want to go ahead and denigrate those that had no issue with these programs, go ahead. But some of these very same people gave their life for you, often without the public knowing who they were. Again, the American public has had three years to digest his outing and, if anything, the government is doubling down on these programs by legalizing what was legally suspect and investing more in these programs. The private sector is also on board. However, our enemies are onto us. Luckily, these revelations have them looking in the wrong places.

That's a horribly flawed argument. First, you're assuming that thousands of people did have access -- never mind the tightly classified, segmented nature of spy agencies. Then there's the question of whether or not the people who knew the full scope were actually supportive of it. Some were, I'm sure, but how many either didn't really understand the problems with it, or weren't totally comfortable but didn't think that speaking up would accomplish anything? Bureaucracy, secrecy and the threat of losing your job can be powerful discouragement tools.

And remember, the big story that first came from Snowden's leaks was focused on US call metadata. Americans. Not foreigners. The vast majority of it was data for innocent people, and metadata can most definitely be used to identify people and track their activities. The international spying revelations came later. Did you actually pay attention to what was leaked?

I appreciate the people in intelligence agencies and the efforts they go through. But that doesn't mean that I have to blindly rubber stamp the system they operate in. Real patriots are always questioning and challenging the way in which their freedom is protected; they don't just assume that the ends always justify the means.

 

[Dari]

That's a horribly flawed argument. First, you're assuming that thousands of people did have access -- never mind the tightly classified, segmented nature of spy agencies. Then there's the question of whether or not the people who knew the full scope were actually supportive of it. Some were, I'm sure, but how many either didn't really understand the problems with it, or weren't totally comfortable but didn't think that speaking up would accomplish anything? Bureaucracy, secrecy and the threat of losing your job can be powerful discouragement tools.

And remember, the big story that first came from Snowden's leaks was focused on US call metadata. Americans. Not foreigners. The vast majority of it was data for innocent people, and metadata can most definitely be used to identify people and track their activities. The international spying revelations came later. Did you actually pay attention to what was leaked?

I appreciate the people in intelligence agencies and the efforts they go through. But that doesn't mean that I have to blindly rubber stamp the system they operate in. Real patriots are always questioning and challenging the way in which their freedom is protected; they don't just assume that the ends always justify the means.

They do when they're the ones building and maintaining the programs. Open your eyes, man. These programs didn't come about to watch you taking a shower or see that you enjoy midget porn. They came about for your security. Take a step back and understand and appreciate the logic behind all these things. Constructive criticism is absolutely essential to making something better but being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious doesn't help anyone. While some things may be timeless, laws and governments need to update their methodologies when the situations call for them. The Founding Fathers didn't have to deal with muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up, all while hiding amongst us. That tripe about trading freedom for security is as old and dead as the many who first said it. The people in government are working as hard as they can within the parameters set about by the electorate. There is nothing evil going on there. Feel free to criticize the hardworking men and women in government once you see the daily threats they have to foil, stop, or slow. Again, Snowden did it for his ego. He was no patriot. IMHO, he deserves death.

 

[Commodus]

They do when they're the ones building and maintaining the programs. Open your eyes, man. These programs didn't come about to watch you taking a shower or see that you enjoy midget porn. They came about for your security. Take a step back and understand and appreciate the logic behind all these things. Constructive criticism is absolutely essential to making something better but being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious doesn't help anyone. While some things may be timeless, laws and governments need to update their methodologies when the situations call for them. The Founding Fathers didn't have to deal with muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings or blowing themselves up, all while hiding amongst us. That tripe about trading freedom for security is as old and dead as the many who first said it. The people in government are working as hard as they can within the parameters set about by the electorate. There is nothing evil going on there. Feel free to criticize the hardworking men and women in government once you see the daily threats they have to foil, stop, or slow. Again, Snowden did it for his ego. He was no patriot. IMHO, he deserves death.

I have opened my eyes. Ever heard of LOVEINT? That's agents at the NSA (and elsewhere) who abused their surveillance powers to spy on partners and exes. And need I remind you that the incoming administration has a President who has open contempt for free speech rights and has already been trying to identify DOE climate change scientists so it can punish them?

The concern isn't necessarily that agents are abusing powers right this second. It's that they're collecting data they genuinely don't need to do their jobs, and that the system allows for abuse with relatively little accountability. You say that they're working within parameters "set about by the electorate," but that's not true -- many of the NSA programs that came to light through Snowden, like PRISM, were created in secret without the knowledge or consent of the public. You can't object to something you're not allowed to know about.

Surveillance needs to keep up with modern times, but it needs to do so in a responsible way. Targeted surveillance, not bulk collection -- especially in the US (in the UK, there was a report showing that collecting excessive data actually increases risks). Don't have an oversight system that's largely or completely unaccountable to the public. Put more safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

What you've argued so far is that whatever the US happens to be doing is okay, and that we should tacitly trust the government because it's surely looking out for our best interests, no matter who's in charge or how little knowledge you have about what's really going on. That's not constructive criticism, that's blind faith.

 

[WelshBloke]

Exactly. So the purpose of these programs were not Stasi-like. They existed for intelligence gathering against our enemies, domestic or foreign. If certain laws got in the way of seeing what certain parties were up to, there were convenient ways around them (but not to usurp them or disregard them). So, respect for the spirit of the law was always there even if respect for the letter of the law wasn't. The former is more important, IMHO.Remember, the people running these programs are fellow Americans. They share the same morals and ethics as you and I. They mean you no harm.

Again, bullshit. We pretty much hoovered up all and any information we could, and passed on as much as you wanted. Now unless you define domestic enemies as "everyone with an active internet connection in the US" then you're wrong.

 

[Dari]

Again, bullshit. We pretty much hoovered up all and any information we could, and passed on as much as you wanted. Now unless you define domestic enemies as "everyone with an active internet connection in the US" then you're wrong.

This changes nothing.

 

[Dari]

I have opened my eyes. Ever heard of LOVEINT? That's agents at the NSA (and elsewhere) who abused their surveillance powers to spy on partners and exes. And need I remind you that the incoming administration has a President who has open contempt for free speech rights and has already been trying to identify DOE climate change scientists so it can punish them?

The concern isn't necessarily that agents are abusing powers right this second. It's that they're collecting data they genuinely don't need to do their jobs, and that the system allows for abuse with relatively little accountability. You say that they're working within parameters "set about by the electorate," but that's not true -- many of the NSA programs that came to light through Snowden, like PRISM, were created in secret without the knowledge or consent of the public. You can't object to something you're not allowed to know about.

Surveillance needs to keep up with modern times, but it needs to do so in a responsible way. Targeted surveillance, not bulk collection -- especially in the US (in the UK, there was a report showing that collecting excessive data actually increases risks). Don't have an oversight system that's largely or completely unaccountable to the public. Put more safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

What you've argued so far is that whatever the US happens to be doing is okay, and that we should tacitly trust the government because it's surely looking out for our best interests, no matter who's in charge or how little knowledge you have about what's really going on. That's not constructive criticism, that's blind faith.

People abuse their powers all the time. It doesn't mean the means (to which they abuse) are bad, just the individuals. Oversight of said people would need to be improved. To dismantle an entire program because someone is reading what their partner wrote is incredibly stupid. And, you're wrong. Politicians were fully aware of what was going on(Also, bits and pieces of these programs have been leaked into the public domain at least a decade prior to Snowden's revelations. ).Since they were the elected representatives of the electorates the onus is on them, not the policymakers, soldiers or engineers. You don't like what's going on? Talk to your politicians or run for office and change it. Again, the public has spoken and they just don't care. With all these muslims trying to kill us, I'd think you'd be on our side.

 

[Commodus]

People abuse their powers all the time. It doesn't mean the means (to which they abuse) are bad, just the individuals. Oversight of said people would need to be improved. To dismantle an entire program because someone is reading what their partner wrote is incredibly stupid. And, you're wrong. Politicians were fully aware of what was going on(Also, bits and pieces of these programs have been leaked into the public domain at least a decade prior to Snowden's revelations. ).Since they were the elected representatives of the electorates the onus is on them, not the policymakers, soldiers or engineers. You don't like what's going on? Talk to your politicians or run for office and change it. Again, the public has spoken and they just don't care. With all these muslims trying to kill us, I'd think you'd be on our side.

Did I or Snowden say dismantle the entire program? No. The whole point is reform. Limit the scope of programs when possible so that an NSA agent can't spy on their ex, or help Trump eavesdrop on activists that question his policies.

And really, you have evidence that politicians were fully aware? So aware that they didn't institute any significant reforms or investigations in the US, UK and EU until Snowden's leaks? Uh huh. And again, one of Snowden's main points was that these programs were shrouded in near-total secrecy, so people couldn't consent to or disagree with them. How am I supposed to vote for leaders who'll reform programs if I don't even know those programs exist, let alone how they work?

Here's your recurring problem: you adore authority. Worship it. Everything the intelligence community does is wise, enlightened and done solely for the public good. If abuse happens, it's not due to the system, because the system can't do wrong; it's simply a few bad apples. And if someone dares point out that the system isn't actually perfect, especially if pointing that out requires leaking data that would otherwise never get out, then they must be murdered in the most horrific way possible.

Now I know you're going to claim that you don't really revere authority and that of course it has imperfections, but look at what you've done in this thread so far. You've bent over backwards to claim that it simply can't be the fault of the NSA or its methods. If you're willing to question authority, that means not getting super-defensive when someone criticizes it. You don't have to think Snowden is a hero or even that he's mostly right, but to take delight in wishing him a painful, agonizing death? It's pretty hard to claim the moral high ground when you sound like a serial killer.