Snowden's Big Truth: We Are All Less Free 583
chicksdaddy writes "In the days since stories based on classified information leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden hit the headlines, a string of reports and editorials claim that he had his facts wrong, accuse him of treason – or both. Others have accused journalists like Glen Greenwald of The Guardian of rushing to print before they had all the facts. All of these criticisms could be valid. Technology firms may not have given intelligence agencies unfettered and unchecked access to their users' data. Edward Snowden may be, as the New York Times's David Brooks suggests, one of those 20-something-men leading a 'life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society.' All those critiques may be true without undermining the larger truth of Snowden's revelation: in an age of global, networked communications and interactions, we are all a lot less free than we thought we were. I say this because nobody has seriously challenged the basic truth of Snowden's leak: that many of the world's leading telecommunications and technology firms are regularly divulging information about their users' activities and communications to law enforcement and intelligence agencies based on warrantless requests and court reviews that are hidden from public scrutiny. It hasn't always been so."
Bruce Schneier has published an opinion piece saying that while Snowden did break the law, we need to investigate the government before any prosecution occurs. (Schneier's piece is one in a series on the subject.) Snowden himself said in an interview today that the U.S. government has been pursuing hacking operations against China for years.
Are we capable of freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?
Re:Are we capable of freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gaining freedom is usually difficult enough. Keeping freedom in a entirely new challenge, requiring virtuous behavior over the long term. That is difficult for most peoples and nations when faced with changing circumstances over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping freedom in a entirely new challenge, requiring virtuous behavior over the long term.
I think the strategy of dividing would-be sources of tyranny against each other has already turned out to be more effective than requiring good behavior.
Simply ready for the Supreme Court to rule. (Score:5, Interesting)
None of the warrents said something like
"All emails stored on VZ servers (listed below) that mention pressurecookers as bombs from the 723 people (listed below) who visited terrorist training camps (listed below) in 2010-2013."
Re: (Score:3)
Scalia's the only one of the nine who is almost guaranteed to strike it down. He has routinely voted against government intrusion such as using IR devices to find grow houses without a warrant or the recent case of the government collecting DNA samples from all people arrested.
Though the most likely outcome is that the Court will not rule on the issue at all, deciding that whoever brings whatever case doesn't have standing because they cannot prove they were spied upon.
Sasha Cohen summed it up 2012 in The Dictator (Score:4, Interesting)
From the Dictator (2012) [youtube.com] - start at 0:28 for the meat.
And as somewhere here on /. said (to paraphrase) "NSA's wiretapping stopped the bombing in Boston. Right?"
We should scream that in every moron's ear who says they "feel safer" with this monitoring.
I'm more shocked about the discussions around this (Score:5, Interesting)
A few things scare me about this topic so far (and it's mostly about discussion rather than the revelations):
- People aren't doing anything / can't do anything about this issue even if they wanted to :/
- People are actually siding with the government and defending them instead of fighting for privacy & freedom
- Big corporations could help us out but what good would storing every piece of user data in encrypted format do for them (no ad money based on our data = no free site anymore, they would just turn into free service providers for their service)
- American's politicians & lawyers are completely paid off by major corporations and if the root of all evil is not separated from the law of the land, you should not expect any freedom or privacy, and it's scary that the American population is more concered about TV shows like The Voice rather than their freedom...
-- No one's really willing to risk their lives or time because right now it's "just good enough", maybe you guys need to hit rock bottom first completely before any change happens or takes place
I'm not really sure what to say or do either, but I'm Canadian and the NSA is probably seeing this as well. Hi NSA, I love you!
- stoops
Not news for the observant folks.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when a government declares 'War' on an idea, or other abstract.
Crusades
Spanish Inquisition
Prohibition
The War on Drugs
The War on Terrorism
etc.
We don't seem able to learn from history, or past mistakes.
We have allowed the Constitution to be folded, spindled, and mutilated...then used for asswipe.
We are overdue for another Revolution.
Re:Not news for the observant folks.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens when a government declares 'War' on an idea, or other abstract.
Spanish Inquisition
Hmmm. I wasn't expecting that.
Re:Not news for the observant folks.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is what happens when a government declares 'War' on an idea, or other abstract.
Spanish Inquisition
Hmmm. I wasn't expecting that.
Nobody did, really.
Obligatory Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Had to be said.
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why do people quote this like it were gospel."
Not Gospel. History. People quote it because it has time and again proven to be historically accurate. People who trade freedom for security well end up getting neither. That's just the way it works.
While not directly related to the quote, here is an excellent description [fff.org] of the basic problem we are discussing in this topic.
---
Re: (Score:3)
Because no liberty is essential ...
Hah. Tell it to the second amendment folks.
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
How so? Seriously. If you impinged upon the First Amendment how is it not useless? Once you find an exception to it, you can keep cutting it back further and further and argue, endlessly, that it doesn't actually infringe. We have this problem right now.
These statements are mutually exclusive.
Are you seriously suggesting that all convictions are both correct and just?
A citizen of this nation. What nation is irrelevant, because the laws of every nation should be subject to scrutiny by its citizens. Or are you going to appeal to authority here?
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
We? On the contrary, they were made for us in favor of others. The DMCA, for instance, violates the 1st Amendment. But it was rammed through despite that.
I seem to recall that argument having been ridiculed recently, that it would not work against a minimally sane populace nor would it be more dangerous than an actual fire alarm going off (other than people telling you to shut up.)
This isn't relevant to the discussion. Not once has killing people ever been mentioned as an essential liberty. Nice straw man though.
Rather, the extents are compromised and violated for whatever short term expedience serves those in power.
Sure it does. It just means their lifespan is limited unless you push back and reclaim them.
A justice system that regularly violates and cuts back essential rights under the claim that doing so will provide increased security is not merely imperfect, but fatally flawed and will in no way "advance the greater good." It will lead to a consolidation of power in the hands of those in said government and nothing more.
I did? Or are you just utterly mad. Keep in mind that the quote (possibly paraphrased) "I would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" came from the same group of men that Franklin stood with.
Which would be an improvement.
Oops, you just failed. You've missed the mark on the topic here, which was the essential freedoms noted in the constitution and bill of rights. Abrogation of those does nothing what so fucking ever to guarantee me a "certain degree of safety."
Re: (Score:3)
Government of the people for the people and by the people. Are you protesting representative democracy now? Thought that was chosen by "same group of men that Franklin stood with."
That you have government officials calling it treason that some policy documents were released goes to show that the US is no longer a democracy.
In a real democracy, those having hidden those documents should be the ones getting put before court.
You simply can't have real democracies without those voting having adequate information.
Re: (Score:3)
"And by god because ole Benny said it, it must be holy! What the hell do you think "government" is? It is a means of giving up certain liberties for protection against larger external threats. It is a balancing act. You cannot have complete freedom and have an effective government. It will not function."
Hahaha! And your point is... WHAT?
Nobody here, as far as I have seen, said anything at all about complete freedom. So what's your point? This is what is commonly known as a straw-man argument. You bring up an issue that seems relevant but really isn't, then knock it down in an attempt to seem like you are actually making a logical argument when you're not. It won't wash here.
This has nothing to do with complete freedom. It has everything to do with having enough freedom to call ourselves a free societ
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War.
We did during WWII as well, and the director of the office was very, very happy the day he shut it down. War time is different from the day-to-day, and this is not war time.
Certainly. Private details about our associations and communications are being seized blindly by the government without warrant. If they are not outright violating the 4th Amendment, then they are working around it so effectively as to neutralize it.
Only if we let it go unchecked and let it become accepted.
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
"Then two other things must also be remembered: First, Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War. Second, there are two qualifiers present: essential and little temporary."
More straw-man arguments. They were at war with their own government. We are not... yet. The situation is hardly comparable.
As I spotted philosoraptor saying on G+ this morning, Snowden is being accused of Treason (aiding The Enemy) for sharing information with the American People. Does that mean the American People are The Enemy?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it means that by making what he has available to everybody, both the American people and the enemy can get it.
To me, this situation can be summed up the same way they sum up our situation. The government loves to tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I feel the same way about them.
civil society (Score:5, Insightful)
life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society
would this be the same civil society whose past mediations have helped perpetuate the institution of slavery and policies of racial discrimination? or is this some other, perfectly enlightened civil society that has at some point between those primeval days and now descended from the heavens to rid us of the need for such crackpots and radicals as might resist its influence?
Ways to help (Score:5, Interesting)
From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change things.
Have more ideas? Please post below.
Links worthy of attention:
http://anticorruptionact.org/ [anticorruptionact.org]
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html [ted.com]
http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections [fairelectionsnow.org]
http://represent.us/ [represent.us]
http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/ [protectourdemocracy.com]
http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]
https://www.unpac.org/ [unpac.org]
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ [thirty-thousand.org]
Suggestion #1:
(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.
Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime, taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system gets fixed.
Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.
If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.
I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson, especially if it is on corporate letterhead.
Suggestion #2:
Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.
Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.
Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.
Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!
Suggestion #3:
A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.
In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.
Suggestion #4:
What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.
Suggestion #5:
Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead [wikipedia.org] to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I've made in
Example of Transitive logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Edward Snowden has defected to China.
Currently, only North Koreans will defect to China.
Therefore we can conclude that Snowden is from North Korea or a comparable nation.
Q.E.D.
Re:Example of Transitive logic (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore we can conclude that Snowden is from North Korea or a comparable nation.
Q.E.D.
Snowden is from the US, so, yes.
Xbox One extends NSA spy powers massively (Score:5, Interesting)
The NSA has one last hole in its program to spy on every citizen- the home in which the citizen lives. Traditionally, throughout Human history, the residencies of civilians have provided refuge from organised efforts of intelligence gathering. This fact, for instance, has allowed the emergence of new political and religious movements, movements that the regimes at the time were determined to crush at birth.
Now Microsoft has partnered with the NSA to solve this problem. The Xbox One (now more commonly known as the XBone or XB1) has been designed from the ground up to spy on people in their own homes.
The XBone comes with a so-called Kinect sensor block. This block contains ordinary and infra-red high definition cameras. It also includes a 'depth processing' system that can easily extract Humans from the background, and apply a skeletal recognition algorithm to track body movement and shape (say when people are having sex). The final sensor is a microphone array that can clearly pick-up the conservations of multiple people in the room (and frequently, adjoining rooms as well).
While the XBone is receiving mains power, the Kinect is fully functioning and processing input. It CANNOT be switched off. If it suffers ANY hardware fault, the console immediately stops working. If the cameras are set facing the wall, or taped over, the console pesters the user to re-calibrate the Kinect.
All software developers (games and apps) must, at the very least, include code to request user calibration of Kinect, even if the app/game doesn't use Kinect features to any significant degree. All game/app interfaces MUST be Kinect aware (allow Kinect gestures to replace input from the controllers). At no time is the user allowed to think non-Kinect use of the console is normal.
Microsoft dedicates at least 1/4 of XBone's hardware resources to processing the data produced by the Kinect sensor system. These resources CANNOT be re-assigned to, say, a AAA high-graphic intensive game. The hardware available to Kinect includes real-time video-compression and encryption.
By default (and this CANNOT be disabled by the user) the Kinect is set to constantly monitor each new person who enters the room (and the times). A full face photograph is taken of each new person. This data is uploaded to remote servers on the Internet at least once each 24 hour period. While the Internet connection is off, this data is stored in a dedicated area of the HDD as an encrypted group of files, for later uploading.
All Internet connected XBones can be remotely programmed with a list of 'trigger' events that trigger against various data conditions recognised by the Kinect sensors. The triggers can include things like gunshots, a male shouting at a female, a given person entering the room, or people in the room moving in a particular way. When any trigger condition occurs, the console can begin streaming video data from the Kinect to either the HDD (for later uploading) or to a remote Internet server if the Internet is currently connected.
Of course, remote intelligence personnel can connect to ANY XBone currently on the Internet, and receive live output from the Kinect sensors regardless of what the console owner is currently doing. The console owner will have ZERO idea this is happening, unless they monitor their outbound Internet traffic. Even then, Microsoft has a program of constantly bursting data to and from each connected console to 'groom' the owner to expect unexplained Internet traffic via the console.
In many ways, Snowden's announcements (which others have correctly pointed out simply confirm data that leaked years ago) show that the NSA is 'bored' with their current level of data collection, now it is old hat to suck and save all regular Internet/phone traffic. Team Obama is desperate to go into places the NSA has never gone before. Much of the intent is the power powerful scumbags think they gain when they can become the supreme 'peeping-tom' and peer into the homes of millions of citizens at will.
Re:Xbox One extends NSA spy powers massively (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with this is that it sounds like raving paranoia. And if it is paranoia and untrue, technically it's just a software update away from being true. And as a theory, it's not really falsifiable.
I certainly won't be buying one of these things.
Sheesh, lighten up (Score:3)
All you have to do is wear a rubber mask that looks like George Bush whenever you are in the room with the gadget. Its a perfectly reasonable trade-off.
scheiner didnt name what law was broken (Score:5, Insightful)
its really presumptous to say someone broke a law without a fair trial
9/11 (Score:3)
On 9/11 3000 Americans died in terrorist attacks.
Other losses incurred as a result were much worse.
Why invoking "terrorism" costs lives (Score:3)
Every month like clockwork 1300 people are killed in this country. No "terror" fearing talking heads seem to give two shits about that.
A 9/11 every 3 months and still endless shit about us being "less safe" cuz of something that happened 12 years ago.
The actual tragedy are politicians who waste countless billions on militiary industrial complex with statistically irrelevant results while that money stands a much better chance of saving real lives if used for other purposes...assuming that is actually what they care soo much about.
Heck you can save lives to unecessary car accidents and save money in the process just by reigning in the TSA.
I heard on the news that Saddam Hussain was working with the terrorists. Year after year our officials make shit up and lie to us, start wars based on knowingly dubious and false information and none of them go to jail not a single goddamn one of them. Sell weapons to Iranians to raise money to fight wars in Nicaragua and everyone gets pardoned. Lie after lie, abuse after abuse, secret courts, secret laws.
The government does not deserve our trust. No government on earth deserves the trust of its people.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about "net neutrality" is they don't actually have to do anything. Hell we could get 99% of what is needed for true network neutrality by declaring ISPs to be common carriers.
he is guilty of the ultimate crime (Score:3, Insightful)
inconveniencing those who have power, without having any power himself
anonymity is the only defense the weak have against the powerful, that is why the powerful are working so hard to destroy it
Re:he is guilty of the ultimate crime (Score:5, Insightful)
So the American Revolution never happened? Universal Sufferage, The Civil Rights Act, etc never got passed?
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it treason? Is he levying war against the United States? Is he siding with the enemies of the United States?
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Informative)
The Constitution specifically restricts treason to two cases: 1) levying war against the United States; 2) "adhering" to its enemies, which is generally taken to require explicitly joining them or allying with them. For example, someone who joined the Wehrmacht during WW2 would be guilty of treason. So would someone who joins Al-Qaeda today. Or someone who raises a private army and invades a U.S. territory.
Treason cannot be charged just for any act that harms the United States or benefits its enemies, but only the specific acts of levying war against the country or joining someone else who is doing so. The Founding Fathers were worried about the more expansive meaning of "treason" that had been in use in Europe, to mean anyone who is taken to betray their country's interests, so defined it much more narrowly in the Constitution.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. I like this bit:
By that logic, you could say that the NSA is internally engaging in seditious action towards the American people with this program. Of course, Snowden isn't being seditious either as he's simply provided evidence of their highly questionable activities.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the same as declaring war on the USofA.
How? Look up ECHELON. The story here is how much the USofA spies on its own citizens.
So China is an "enemy country"?
Where do you think your mobile phone is manufactured? If they're an "enemy" then we certainly do a lot to help their economy and employment.
Taking a stand is not the same as committing suicide.
Our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to convict them if they lost the war. But it was not a suicide pact. It was them standing up for their beliefs.
Anything else is tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why he's angered the US government so badly, is because he's divulged sensitive information that has damaged American interests.
American interests are strictly limited by the Constitution. He may have damaged the interests of the criminals who run this country, but that's not the same as American interests.
Re: (Score:3)
fleeing to an enemy country
Speaking of "important details", the US and China are not at war.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the embarrassment he's caused for the US government, he will suffer consequences, there's no doubt about that.
There, I fixed it for you. I will never begrudge a man like Snowden who exposes constitutional violations by the government.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the idea that our rights and laws can only be understood by specialized lawyers, but they're supposed to apply to us and ignorance is not a defense.
It's a completely irrational state of affairs, and the best part is when people criticize others using it.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Interesting)
Constitutional law is another branch of the law, one, AIUI, which requires dedicated years of study to fully master.
No, it takes dedicated years of study to become fully indoctrinated to the point where this kind of bullshit appears legal. The point of law school is not to teach you the law, it's to teach you how to distort the law to get your way.
Remember, just government relies on the consent of the governed. Uninformed consent is invalid. If The People cannot understand the Constitution, they can't consent to be governed.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Funny)
If it's genuinely gotten so bad that it takes an expert to understand the plain words of the constitution, we're screwed anyway.
It doesn't! Many laws are not that hard to read.
Our brave officials have gotten to redefining very plain words in the constitutions/laws in general.
"Spying" is not really "spying"
"Meta-data" is not "data"
"Imminent" danger means "there might or might not be a danger in the future"
"Militant" means "anyone we killed by drone"
"Terrorist" means "someone we don't like"
"Whistle-blower" means "traitor"
Oh, and many of those re-definitions are classified, so it takes years (and a whistle-blower) to even find out that they already happened.
Re: (Score:3)
I've said it before, the Constitution is an incredibly difficult document to understand, if you are trying to understand it as a means of limiting rights/expanding government authority.
It's a spectacularly clear and concise document to understand if you are looking at it from the perspective of protecting rights/limiting government authority.
The guy is a hero (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a high-school dropout who gave up a $200k yr. job, an acrobat girlfriend and was living in Hawaii -- things I would have given my left nut to have.
Yes, he gave that all up because, get this, he is one of the few people in this nation that actually understands the Constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It's supposed to control our government so they do not do PRECISELY what they are doing. It's supposed to prevent us from falling into tyranny.
But most of us do not care. He did. He's a hero.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The guy is a hero (Score:5, Insightful)
We have people aged 18, and in the past younger, who have been authorized to kill people by the government, and you're trying to tell us that a 29 year old does not have the maturity and mental capacity to understand the slightest thing about these issues? Who does? Is the answer something like "The people in charge, that we should all be listening to, because they know what is best for us"? Is there any point where you believe a person can have a moral stance separate from authority? I would be interested to know what would qualify for you. On the other hand... I think maybe I'm just falling for an old internet game.
Also, you have managed to withhold your sympathy.
Congratulations on making the world a better place.
Re: (Score:3)
"Given the damage he's done to the US and the West, he will suffer consequences, there's no doubt about that."
Honest question: are you out of your mind?
He was pointing out damage the government has done , not causing any himself.
Treason is betraying The People of the United States. That's what the government was doing. Treason is NOT betraying the government, it is betraying The People.
A hero, on the other hand, is somebody who says "The public has A Need To Know, damn the torpedoes". That's what Snowden did.
I think you need to get your priorities examined.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
he has committed an extremely serious act of treason
Cunts like you are what has ruined this country. You probably would have voted for Nixon with glee.
The idea that exposing government malfeasance is treason is the most insidious bullshit I have ever heard. If the government does it, it IS illegal, and it SHOULD be exposed. Anything less is the real treason--treason against the people.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Informative)
Violated the 4th Amendment (oh right, we're not qualified to understand our own rights.)
No, they'd do it and rely on secrecy, security clearances, high pay, intimidation and threats of legal retribution if it gets out and they find out who did it.
A government with a track record of violating the constitution and human rights of many people has, yet again, violated the constitution?
This does not follow. The government has many a time done illegal, underhanded things and tried to cover it up. I bet you'd do your damnedest to suggest that no one's rights have been violated by the Drug War, too.
Re: (Score:3)
"Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourt
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
He most definitely has not committed treason. He did commit a crime by disclosing classified information, but I think we need to first investigate and determine whether the government was indeed breaking the law. It cannot be illegal to reveal classified information relating to illegal activity. Otherwise, our government would be able to act completely unchecked by simply choosing to classify information on what they are doing, with no justification.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4)
I'm not sure his leak has done any damage at all. It's not like this program wasn't known about. Hell it was suspected of being this bad or worse. All his leak did was verify what people already thought.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference though (at least from my point of view) is that the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy brigade never had any actual real evidence to justify their complaints that the government was listening in on everything.
Snowden has flipped that around. It's no longer a suspected conspiracy theory, because it has been proven to exist (... assuming his evidence pans out to be real, which I have no reason to doubt at the moment).
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the damage he's done to the US and the West
Snowden has done no damage to the US and the West. On the contrary, he has done us all a huge favor by bringing abuses of our rights to light.
Now, the criminals who set up this illegal surveillance program, THEY have done extreme damage to the US.
he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
No, that would be the criminals responsible for implementing PRISM.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
They are doing it to foil terrorist attacks (and they've gone on the record saying that gathered intelligence has foiled "dozens" of terrorists attacks).
Of course they would say that. How do we know it's actually true?
Western spying is subject to a tremendous amount of oversight by the right people (and if you'll excuse me, Slashdot keyboard warriors aren't "the right people").
The whole point of Snowden's leak is that that is not true. There is essentially no oversight. Definately not enough oversight to comply with the 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, even many members of Congress are now coming out talking about how little they were informed of what was going on. And you have to love choice quotes from Clapper about how when previously asked about the surveillance that he was telling them the "least untruthful answer". And these are the people we are to trust?
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
They are doing it to foil terrorist attacks (and they've gone on the record saying that gathered intelligence has foiled "dozens" of terrorists attacks).
The cutest part is that you actually believe this crap. Yeah they pinky swear this time that it's only to catch terrorists. It not like the government has been caught secretly spying on US citizens before for political reasons.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, if we the people allow the government the power to know everything about our daily activities, the inevitable eventual outcome is a totalitarian police state.
As for you're statement that "Western spying is subject to a tremendous amount of oversight by the right people" ... that is clearly false ... without truthful testimony to Congress, congressional oversight is meaningless.
Re:Snowden is fucked (Score:4, Informative)
While it raises important issues, I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Although he did break the law, he did not [nytimes.com] commit treason.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Saying he has no sympathy doesn't sound much like he's simply stating what will happen. Makes it sound like he approves.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. You're facing off against people who can redefine the word treason to mean whatever they want, and have that troop of yes-men known as the citizenry nodding their heads as any charge is read off.
Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
... and petty power corrupts all out of proportion anyways.
We've lost freedom constantly. Freedom to alter things we PURCHASED? Check. All the freedoms associated with actually making a purchase? Gone to shrink-wrap agreements, "End User License Agreements", and other bullshit that makes a purchase not really a purchase.
Onboard computers in cars: now you can't clear the code or find out what's wrong on a new-model car without going to the dealership because they lag behind and won't sell your local mechanic the adapter and the reader software. Friend of mine got his brakes changed on a volkswagen model and an alarm started blaring off; turned out VW stuck a sensor in the brake pads that causes the alarm if it's not found, and the normal size-compatible pads from 3rd party makers didn't have the sensor.
NSA tracking is the tip of the iceberg, the consumer got fucked in the ass long ago.
Constitutional Convention (Score:3)
Realistically, the federal government will never relinquish the power that it has usurped - our right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects will never be respected under the status quo.
The realistic course of action is to focus on state legislatures, and call a convention to forcibly remove these noxious elements from the sphere of federal power. The procedure to do so is quite clear:
Re:Constitutional Convention (Score:5, Interesting)
Your rights in this regard are completely intact. You seem to think that emails, phone logs, and all manner of web data are "papers and effects", whereas no US court has ever held such a thing. And rightly so, this information is held on other people's computers, with no bailment or contract. As far as AT&T or Google is concerned, this sort of information is explicitly their property, not yours. Making this sort of information private would create a vast legal-bureaucratic framework -- the sort of regulation a hospital has to apply to HIPPA, with compliance officers, civil and criminal liability, all administered and verified by the federal government, except applying to every medium of every ISP, phone company, and website on the US Internet.
The last century of jurisprudence has generally held that, if electromagnetism is involved, the fourth amendment does not attach, because the consequences of such a ruling would utterly trample the rights of the comm network operators -- phone records, routing information, cookies, database rows, all of these things are their stuff, it is their privacy courts are most worried about, not yours; if you want privacy, keep your business off the Internet, where dozens of private corporations happily track your every move before the NSA even gets involved. You might as well demand privacy on the teacups at Disneyland.
The explicit exception to this is phone calls, and these are only protected on account of the quasi-state status of telephone networks as "Common Carriers."
Forbidden by the framers? (Score:5, Interesting)
The flaw in your logic is the postal service. They are now maintaining images of the exterior of every piece of mail that they process. The exteriors of written correspondence are also part of my effects. This intrusion, useful as it has been, violates the 4th.
Perhaps a convention could clarify our privacy rights - if Google, Verizon, Microsoft, et al. cannot guarantee privacy from all intrusions, then they cannot prevent any intrusions. From this moment forward, all information on 3rd party carriers must be opened to public inspection. Everything. I get to hear all of your phone calls, read all of your email, and see all of your searches, and you get the same access to mine.
The court rulings have established unequal privilege and power for a shadow government, and I do not believe that they are correct. The majority of U.S. citizens appear to agree with me.
We've been having serious national problems in the political realm since Nixon because the powerful think they own the populace and do not have to abide by the rules for the rest of us. What do you suggest we do?
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the issue: YOU DON'T GET TO USE THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT as an excuse to limit Constitutional rights!
Google and the entire Internet can go fuck itself -- it's simply not important compared to the Bill of Rights!
Re: (Score:3)
Your rights in this regard are completely intact. You seem to think that emails, phone logs, and all manner of web data are "papers and effects", whereas no US court has ever held such a thing.
I have no doubt that if phones and the Internet had existed in 1789, they would have been covered by the 4th. Forgive the 1st congress for not fully anticipating 200+ years of technological change.
The explicit exception to this is phone calls, and these are only protected on account of the quasi-state status of telephone networks as "Common Carriers."
Bull. Wiretaps require a warrant only because the Supreme Court decided that they do, instead of, as they do today, shredding the Bill of Rights by finding every conceivable exception to it, reasonable or not. "No phones in the 18th century" didn't impress them as an argument. Fast forward to the 21st century and
Re: (Score:3)
And rightly so
Rightly so? Rightly so!? You're saying it's okay for the government to outsource its spying to corporations? You're completely insane.
As far as AT&T or Google is concerned, this sort of information is explicitly their property, not yours.
It doesn't matter what corporations think. We the people technically have the power to create new (new in your eyes, anyway) rules that say that emails and other such things cannot simply be spied on by the government without a warrant, and should they fail to follow the rules, any evidence they find would be tossed out in court (as it should be). It doesn't matter that the e
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately in this modern era, it's hard to recommend someone actually buy a car -- you should lease with a 100% of service covered (this is yet another one of the subtle ways people with poor credit are relegated to the Second Class).
If you must own a car, you should pay cash up front. If you want a new car with all the googaws, you should prepare to be slowly bled dry by service. The other option is to buy something from before the Computer Revolution and expect to get it serviced a lot, but for a l
Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who watches the watchers?
Congress is supposed to watch the watchers. The voters are supposed to watch Congress.
Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who watches the watchers?
Congress is supposed to watch the watchers. The voters are supposed to watch Congress.
Actually, Congress, the President, and the Courts are supposed to watch each other (aka "separation of powers), and the voters watch Congress and the President.
The Separation of Powers part of this has broken down over the last century or so. Thanks to Teddy "Bully Pulpit" Roosevelt and the necessity of presidential leadership during the World Wars and the Cold War, Congress has gotten into the habit of deferring to the President a lot more than it used to. The Progressive Era and the New Deal (in particular, Wickard vs. Filburn [wikipedia.org]) set Supreme Court precedents of deferring to Congress, essentially reversing the assumption from "Congress may only make laws about things the Constitution explicitly allows" to "Congress may make laws about anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid." And with this increase in number and especially scope of laws, Congress can't write them without leaving a huge amount of the details and oversight to the discretion of the bureaucracies implementing them -- a power it is not supposed to delegate, because it means that the executive branch (the bureaucracies) is effectively crafting legislation.
This is an example of what happens when people grant power to government to achieve something they want, without considering how that power will be used. Both the political right and left are guilty of this. Whenever the questions of "should we give government this power?" or "should we set this precedent?", people tend to think in the short term about how people who think like they do can use that power or precedent to do things that they want done. The question they usually fail to ask, and should, is "how will someone whose ideas I detest use this?" Think of someone whose ideology you loathe -- it doesn't matter who it is. Assume that someone like them will have political power someday, because they will. Now look at any question of "should the government have this power?" in terms of what that person would do with it.
To use a tech-related analogy: when the developers of an online game are working on a feature (a new item, new rule, new quest, whatever) or even major bug fix, they not only have to ask "will this be fun for the players?" They also have to ask "will this empower griefers? How about gold-farmers? Bot-users? Does it leave anything open to exploit?" And that's the type of question too many Americans have been neglecting to ask for a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
This power was not granted, it was simply taken by stepping over democracy's dead corps.
That would be "dead corpse." The way you're spelling it, a dead corps would be a few divisions of zombie Marines. Which, granted, would be pretty cool.
"Semper braaaaains! Oorah!"
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Interesting)
That is all.
Problem is, you have to *keep* fighting against any and all loss of rights. People are corrupt, greedy, and stupid... this naturally leads to an erosion of individual rights.
Freedom is a high-maintenance thing, but the cost of not doing the maintenance is slavery; if history is any indication, the outcome is all too damned common.
What was the saying again? "A republic, if you can keep it." People keep forgetting that last bit.
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that. Freedom is scary. There are always lots of "reasonable" arguments to give up some freedom (even just for a little while) in order to defeat or defend against the "bad guys".
You don't want your freedom getting in the way of fighting the bad guys, do you?
The bad guys will abuse your freedom so that they can attack us good guys.
As always, Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, you don't get any points for thinking some bit of bad news was obvious before it was news. Well, you get mod points, so maybe you do, but I'd rather have negative karma and a slightly higher chance of the NSA being put back in its place.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you mention the year 1984... ...as recently as when that book was originally written, if this kind of news came out? I suspect that half the federal government would have been recalled, impeached, and imprisoned. That is, if the White House wasn't burned down first.
Re:Not quite. (Score:4, Interesting)
Which government do you think will "disappear" him? He has a laptop full of stolen US national security data and is in the Communist Chinese city of Hong Kong, and has been invited to Russia. Don't you think that the Chinese government might have some people watching him? You know, in case he forgets his laptop after buying some noodles, so he doesn't lose it?
Re:Not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the semi-autonomous capitalist city-state of Hong Kong? HK has been a thorn in the side of the CCP constantly - as a British Crown Colony before the handover and as a Special Administrative Region after.
Re:Not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
How hard is it to use wikipedia to check basic facts before spouting off nonsense in a public forum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not quite. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet they have separate passports and can't apply for or receive a passport at a Chinese embassy. I was told this about 4 months ago by a Hong Kong resident with a US greencard.
You don't have your own passports if you aren't autonomous at an international level. Now if you are arguing they don't provide their own defense or execute trade agreements independent of China you might be right.
Re: (Score:3)
The rule of law is well developed in Hong Kong and the legal system is completely separate from mainland China. If the Chinese or Hong Kong government wishes to break the law, it can, but not without political consequences.
The only alternative would be "extraordinary rendition". Any country can practice this anywhere, as long as they can successfully pull it off without getting caught.
Re:Not quite. (Score:4, Insightful)
If Snowden keeps calling the government out on its lies and providing evidence that embarrasses those currently in power, he will be made to disappear without any trial at all.
It's embarrassing for the US govt that it hacked China? It's not as if China has any superior technology the US wants to steal. The US govt simply wants to know what China is up to, since China happens to back a rogue states with nukes and missiles that occasionally saber-rattle about evaporating cities if their extortion demands aren't met.
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody who was surprised by his 'announcement' that the US government is 'invading your privacy' is an idiot. PRISM is nothing more than an evolution of ECHELON, which has been public knowledge for more than a decade (a quick search on Wikipedia could have saved him a lifetime as a fugitive). Let's get one thing straight, when the Government and Intelligence agencies say they have found a "balance between privacy and surveillan
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Brit, I've always wondered about how you guys look back on the revolution. Since the US was created out of a revolutionary war you'd think that there could be no act that is more than in keeping with the spirit and founding principles of the republic than seeking to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds. But most of your 'patriotic' type pundits seem to view any form of anti-establishment sentiment as either communism or treason.
In the UK we've never really gone in for violent revolution, so I can understand why our national identity doesn't lend itself to direct action. But you guys are always going on about the glory of the republic and the benefits that you gained via armed struggle against the state. How do you keep those sort if ideas straight in your heads alongside the sort of 'my country, right or wrong' jingoism that has you reciting oaths of loyalty in school and so forth?
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, you beheaded your own king...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meh, that was some considerable time ago - and we just ended up with a kind of mini monarchy for a few years before reverting to the status quo (albeit with a few more constitutional restraints on the crown). Being a regicide has never been much of a badge of honour.
More recently, we kept the monarchy in the 18th century while the French were murdering their aristocracy, we had a general strike that didn't become a communist revolution and we flat out ignored the blackshirts who were agitating in the late
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK we've never really gone in for violent revolution
British self-delusion. The English Civil War(s), and more generally the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, were about a lot more than beheading one lousy king, and were incredibly bloody affairs that can hardly be dismissed, as you try to do, as some minor exception to an otherwise peaceful history. The real difference between Britain and France or the US is that you had your revolution earlier.
Meh, that was some considerable time ago
17th century. American Revolution was 18th century. Not exactly recent.
you guys are always going on about the glory of the republic and the benefits that you gained via armed struggle against the state
As would the British if Cromwell hadn't been such
Re:And water is wet (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pledge of Allegiance is not jingoistic in any way. That's some sort of weird European hangup over something that's little different from singing a national anthem.
Bull fucking shit. Anyone who actually grew up in the US knows better than that.
It is jingoistic, nobody else does anything remotely like it, and when you get right down to it, it's weird.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, that was some considerable time ago - and we just ended up with a kind of mini monarchy for a few years before reverting to the status quo (albeit with a few more constitutional restraints on the crown). Being a regicide has never been much of a badge of honour.
1649, to be exact. 127 years before the Americans decided to throw off the yoke of King George. However, keep in mind that the religious descendants of the movement that lopped off Charles' head were among the first colonists in what later became the United States. Then a few years later (in 1688) y'all had the Glorious Revolution, importing a foreign king to replace the one you didn't like, largely because he was too easy on Catholics.
And if you read the writings of some the the USA's leading revolution
Channeling XKCD: (Score:5, Funny)
"And yet the Tea Party thugs were demanding government "do whatever it takes" post-9/11... "
You knew about the Tea Party in late 2001? What else did you know about that was still in the future? Lemme guess, you knew about Katrina and didn't warn us? You bastard!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Channeling XKCD: (Score:4)
Anti-nationals? Making up terminology here or something?
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeealllyyy??
People who hate the US? Such as?
What makes someone an "anti-national?" Can you tell me? Or is this another extreme right "people we don't like, for whatever reason" code-word?
Re:*NO ONE* has freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligent people invite opposing opinions and welcome discussions that may change each other's mind. Mindless goons with clubs and "loud" words don't seek to convince, they seek to demand. It's clear what camp you are in.
Re: (Score:3)
"You can always tell who the mentally handicapped people are by their belief in freedom."
Really? I always thought it was determined by medical, psychological and educational professionals nowadays.
Amazing the people we'll have to reclassify if belief sets determine whether you're mentally handicapped. All that research out the window.
Re:And water is wet (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone thinks he's a hero.
But no one is willing to stand alongside him and shake a collective fist against the government for fear of 'reprisals'.
We've lost.
It is positively fascinating how close... (Score:3)
...and yet how off the mark you are.
Here... let me fix that analogy of yours so it reflects reality.
Team A would check every other team's playbook without their knowledge.
They would do it by making copies of said playbooks naturally.
But they would also by spying on every coach of every team, every player of every team, their family members, neighbors, anyone who ever had any contact with them, including the players, families and everyone even remotely connected to players on the team A.
Would that be OK with