Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security United States

SXSW: Edward Snowden Swipes At NSA 116

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-stab-at-thee dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "In a Google Hangout with an auditorium full of South by Southwest attendees, government whistleblower (and former NSA employee) Edward Snowden suggested that encrypted communication should become more ubiquitous and easier to use for the majority of Internet denizens. 'The way we interact with [encrypted email and communications] is not good,' he said from somewhere within Russia, where he resides under the conditions of a one-year asylum. 'It needs to be out there, it needs to happen automatically, it needs to happen seamlessly.' For his part, Snowden still believes that companies should store user data that contributes directly to their respective business: 'It's not that you can't collect any data, you should only collect the data and hold it as long as necessary for the operation of the business.' He also couldn't resist some choice swipes at his former employer, accusing high-ranking intelligence officials Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander of harming the world's cyber-security—and by extension, United States national security—by emphasizing offensive operations over the defense of communications. 'America has more to lose than anyone else when every attack succeeds,' Snowden said. 'When you are the one country that has sort of a vault that's more full than anyone else's, it makes no sense to be attacking all day.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SXSW: Edward Snowden Swipes At NSA

Comments Filter:
  • Not an employee (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:14PM (#46448195)

    Correction, Snowden was not an employee of the NSA, Snowden was a contractor.

    And yes, there is a huge difference.

  • by rlp (11898) on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:16PM (#46448211)

    Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

  • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Monday March 10, 2014 @03:24PM (#46448285) Homepage

    Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.

    But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.

    That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.

    So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.

  • Unlimited Asylum (Score:4, Informative)

    by qpqp (1969898) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:22PM (#46449695)

    Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and won't send him back home.

    (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/ - of all sources...)

The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago

Working...