Russia and China decrypt Snowden files

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Reasonable expectation of privacy. If it's not in your immediate sole possession or secured under explicit measures then it's not private, and any expectation for it to be is unreasonable. That's not government's doing, it's the damn world we live in today.

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you a fucking moron? Of course he would print what government sources gave him. Do you expect CIA operatives to publicly announce they had to leave the country they were in?

And what are you? Henry Kissenger? You're just as much as a novice at politics as everybody else, except I don't take some dipshit Snowden's perspective at 100% of face value like you cumwads.

There is zero evidence that Snowden's leaks have led to the injury, death, or evacuation of any operative. The governments don't even know what documents Snowden took, so for them to claim this is laughable.

Narrow financial expertise? LOL. The dickhair I left on the mens room urinal this morning has forgotten more about finance than you'll ever know.

Nah, you didn't leave any dickhairs in the men's room. Just like here, I'm pretty sure you swallowed everything wholesale.

 

[Blackjack200]

Reasonable expectation of privacy. If it's not in your immediate sole possession or secured under explicit measures then it's not private, and any expectation for it to be is unreasonable. That's not government's doing, it's the damn world we live in today.

That's cool, you can live under the Stasi, I prefer freedom.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

That's cool, you can live under the Stasi, I prefer freedom.

Look, my position on this is the same as it is police checkpoints vs. license plate logging. The former is an egregious violation of the 4th amendment that unfortunately has the courts' blessings and the latter is collecting information that multiple parties already have access to anyway. Hell, there's nothing stopping a private citizen with a highway view from recording every car that goes by and turning that data over to the police of their own volition. So why should we restrict law enforcement from the tools ordinary citizens already have? Why should those tasked with protecting the country be restricted from tools, say, google already have (and use for far less noble purposes)?

 

[Genx87]

Look, my position on this is the same as it is police checkpoints vs. license plate logging. The former is an egregious violation of the 4th amendment that unfortunately has the courts' blessings and the latter is collecting information that multiple parties already have access to anyway. Hell, there's nothing stopping a private citizen with a highway view from recording every car that goes by and turning that data over to the police of their own volition. So why should we restrict law enforcement from the tools ordinary citizens already have? Why should those tasked with protecting the country be restricted from tools, say, google already have (and use for far less noble purposes)?

Gee why do you think? Because unlike Google. The state can use violence to do whatever the hell it wants. Allowing the govt to collect meta data of US citizens allows for abuse within the system. That abuse manifests itself it many horrible ways. History has shown what happens when the govt is allowed to collect data or breach the privacy of citizens. It also makes criminals out of people who have done little wrong. Our no-fly lists reach into the millions. Innocent people get caught up in the dragnet. Receiving an email or phone call can put us on a watch list. Once on that list the govt will now monitor your moves. That that should be enough to worry people.

 

[Genx87]

Reasonable expectation of privacy. If it's not in your immediate sole possession or secured under explicit measures then it's not private, and any expectation for it to be is unreasonable. That's not government's doing, it's the damn world we live in today.

When I make a phone call or send an email. I have a reasonable expectation that is private. And some govt goon isnt listening to the call or reading my email. Just because it is the world we live within doesnt mean govt should get free reign to rifle through our personal stuff. Go get a warrant like they have had to do since the beginning of this country.

 

[lxskllr]

Hell, there's nothing stopping a private citizen with a highway view from recording every car that goes by and turning that data over to the police of their own volition.

Because no one's gonna do that, and the police should be forbidden from accepting it. Some random shitbag has exactly zero power over me unlike the government.

So why should we restrict law enforcement from the tools ordinary citizens already have? Why should those tasked with protecting the country be restricted from tools, say, google already have (and use for far less noble purposes)?

See above. Google has very little on me, and what they do have decreases in volume and relevance every day. In any case, Google has little impact on my life and liberty. Google engineers aren't gonna have an armed raid on my house, or put me in jail based on erroneous or fraudulent data.

Your argument is short sighted and irrelevant.

 

[inachu]

If china wants info then they will flood the company with resumes from pretty asian girls.

If Israel wants info then they talk to a israeli american who already works there then they get hired then they troll the network for computer ip addresses of people who slight Israel in a bad light. Then they even send roaming art students to confirm on suspected people. --- Ohh Hi! Would you like to buy some art?!?! Oh I'm not supposed to be here? Oh silly ole me!

 

[bshole]

See above. Google has very little on me, and what they do have decreases in volume and relevance every day. In any case, Google has little impact on my life and liberty. Google engineers aren't gonna have an armed raid on my house, or put me in jail based on erroneous or fraudulent data.

Yea but they will happily turn every shred of data they do have on you over to the federal government if asked to do so. The government doesn't have to monitor you, google does that for them.

 

[Jimzz]

Yea but they will happily turn every shred of data they do have on you over to the federal government if asked to do so. The government doesn't have to monitor you, google does that for them.

Difference is I don't have to use google and google can't lock me up with no charges or torture me "legally".

 

[BoberFett]

Yea but they will happily turn every shred of data they do have on you over to the federal government if asked to do so. The government doesn't have to monitor you, google does that for them.

So the government forces companies to turn over their data, and you blame corporations?

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

 

[irishScott]

Difference is I don't have to use google and google can't lock me up with no charges or torture me "legally".

That and I get a lot of value from Google in exchange for my info. Maps, Gmail, Drive, customized search, all top-notch services.

What does the government give me for my information? Security? Lol yeah, because them knowing what porn I watch and what blogs I read makes everyone so much safer!

 

[Blackjack200]

So the government forces companies to turn over their data, and you blame corporations?

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Google has a lot of lattitude in their response. They can require a court order to turn over information, and if the FBI, CIA, NSA, or anyone else is somehow comelling them to turn over information without one, they can make their customers aware that it is happening.

I do have a problem with Google reflexively complying with every government request for information, and being secretive about it.

 

[Jimzz]

Google has a lot of lattitude in their response. They can require a court order to turn over information, and if the FBI, CIA, NSA, or anyone else is somehow comelling them to turn over information without one, they can make their customers aware that it is happening.

I do have a problem with Google reflexively complying with every government request for information, and being secretive about it.

Actually no they can't in most cases. The secret courts put gag orders on many request. That's why many corporations have had to put notices in their financial reports. "This year we have received 0 request..." if that message disappears the next year then you know. That's the only way they can do it now with all the secret courts and gag orders given for everything.
But that is on a full scale size, not a personal "Blackjack200 the Fed Gov is asking for your e-mail contents...".

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, I am aware of gag orders, but they can still alert their customers that "under Section X of the Y Act, we may be asked from time to time to supply Z information. This is the information we maintain, and this is the information we provide under those circumstances."

That's what they would do if they wanted to be transparent.

 

[Thebobo]

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-and-john-oliver-2015-4
I'm wondering how many people that still see Snowden as anything other than a little shit didn't watch the Oliver interview.

He was referring to the documents he disclosed. Thats the way I see it.

 

[Blackjack200]

He was referring to the documents he disclosed. Thats the way I see it.

Garbage reporter. Look, he parroted the Sunday Times story uncritically.

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6

Guy clearly has an agenda.

Snowden's story makes sense. He knows Putin's reputation, and he did not want to be tortured.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, I am aware of gag orders, but they can still alert their customers that "under Section X of the Y Act, we may be asked from time to time to supply Z information. This is the information we maintain, and this is the information we provide under those circumstances."

That's what they would do if they wanted to be transparent.

Which says NOTHING about any specific government request. Unless you're fan of legal CYA language, what you just posted is worthless.

 

[Blackjack200]

Which says NOTHING about any specific government request. Unless you're fan of legal CYA language, what you just posted is worthless.

No, it's not. Companies do not have to keep your information. I believe Apple came out recently and said that they now destroy user data. Companies could also allow you to remove your data, or mask it so it's useful for their advertising purposes, but not useful for governments.

 

[Jimzz]

No, it's not. Companies do not have to keep your information. I believe Apple came out recently and said that they now destroy user data. Companies could also allow you to remove your data, or mask it so it's useful for their advertising purposes, but not useful for governments.

And a secret court will order them to store the data and not tell anyone.

The latest "freedom" NSA bill makes the phone companies store the data instead of the NSA. So its not like they have not done this or planned for it as well.

 

[cabri]

No, it's not. Companies do not have to keep your information. I believe Apple came out recently and said that they now destroy user data. Companies could also allow you to remove your data, or mask it so it's useful for their advertising purposes, but not useful for governments.

CAN != WILL

All they need is a government notice to retain/turn over the data, "under protest". And the government has shown that such happens a lot.