NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden

[Y2HH]

As a warning, if you came here for a Edward Snowden hero worship conversation, click back now.

 

Forgive me, but I have to come somewhere to rant about this. Reddit and the rest of the circle-jerking hive mind Internet are heralding this guy as a hero of freedom for what, IMO, any intelligent person already knew was going on.

 

First, I didn't need this "leak" to verify anything. It's not like this was a secret that the NSA spies on Americans via the use of the Patriot Act. This is why they passed the Patriot Act. Is everyone f***ing stupid? Did people just assume they passed this freedom snatching power trip of a law for no reason? The second they passed the Patriot Act, expanded it, and re-passed it, I figured everyone KNEW this was going on. Having some douchebag "leak" it, after he was actively taking part in it for who knows how long doesn't impress me. Stop electing a congress with an approval rating such as they have and maybe you wouldn't end up with such "surprisingly unsurprising news".

 

Second, people like Snowden, Assange, and Manning cause more harm in the end than any good they do, as most of this is irresponsible, un-vetted opinions, OR carelessly released information. For example, this is hurting Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Apple, and most of the reason why is simply incorrect and stupid assumption. Based on this idiot's comments today, he says, and I quote, "Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we’re finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception. They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?"

 

This is such a load of bulls***, I don't even know where to begin. First, their denials haven't changed, at all. From the get go, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple denied direct involvement in PRISM, and the information they've released has all been done so on court orders. They haven't changed this message, either, as he claims. Second, he says they are legally compelled to oblige, which they are, but goes on to say that does not comply them from ethical obligation? What the f*** does that even mean? He goes on to say if one of these huge companies was to refuse to provide the information, under court order, what do you think the government would do, shut them down? Seriously? Did he seriously ask this? Is this guy like 13 years old? The government can make doing business, or getting anything done VERY hard when you don't comply with their legal court orders. Hell, they can make your life hard when you don't comply with them asking you nicely, let alone the fact that they have VALID f***ing court orders.

 

Seriously, stop hero worshiping morons and start thinking for yourselves. The Patriot Act exists...it wouldn't exist if they weren't spying on you, you don't need idiots like this to "verify" anything for you.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I can't bring myself to read beyond the first 2 paragraphs. It's disgusting and insulting and I'm not even interested in seeing what the point is. Come back to me when you can write like a human being.

[Balta1701]

Then don't read.

If a writer can't go a sentence without referencing bodily fluids as an insult, the writer should be embarrassed.

[Y2HH]

If a writer can't go a sentence without referencing bodily fluids as an insult, the writer should be embarrassed.

 

I've removed such references. Forgive me, what I've been reading from "posters" on Reddit have pushed me...it was like wading through peoples drool in order to have a conversation about this guy. False hero worship sickens me.

 

...and I wasn't referencing the bodily fluids to insult anyone in particular, I was using it as a reference to how the Internet at large is reacting to this right now. If you know anything about Reddit, you'd understand the term circle jerk as I had used it. It's pretty common slang there. I thought you were Internet Reddit savvy. Do you never use Reddit?

 

I edited Internet savvy to Reddit savvy, because if you don't go there, you wouldn't know how commonly used those references are. But you're right, in either case, it's unnecessary language.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I've removed such references. Forgive me, what I've been reading from "posters" on Reddit have pushed me...it was like wading through peoples drool in order to have a conversation about this guy. False hero worship sickens me.

Thank you. Now I can actually read. And to your surprise I'm sure, I'm not certain I disagree with the original post.

[Buehrle>Wood]

You should check out /r/circlebroke if you love to hate the circlejerk. It's the only thing I am subscribed to on Reddit.

 

 

Anyways, I just don't think he can be equated with Assange or Manning. Certainly a lot more noble than those buffoons. I dont necessarily disagree with the rest.

[Balta1701]

You should check out /r/circlebroke if you love to hate the circlejerk. It's the only thing I am subscribed to on Reddit.

 

 

Anyways, I just don't think he can be equated with Assange or Manning. Certainly a lot more noble than those buffoons. I dont necessarily disagree with the rest.

There's definitely a lot to this story...he's clearly thought a lot more about what he's doing than Manning did, which isn't really surprising given their respective circumstances...of course, that raises the valid question about why there are so many people in the intelligence business in this country and whether that alone is a security risk (it obviously is).

[Y2HH]

You should check out /r/circlebroke if you love to hate the circlejerk. It's the only thing I am subscribed to on Reddit.

 

 

Anyways, I just don't think he can be equated with Assange or Manning. Certainly a lot more noble than those buffoons. I dont necessarily disagree with the rest.

 

I agree he's not as bad as the others, because at least he had some insight on this, but the way he's trying to come off as a savior via his interviews is making me sick. He also jumps to conclusions as to how business works in the US, simply because he worked for the NSA. The way he's talking, and it bothers me greatly, he's basically saying, "Apple or Google should have denied participation DESPITE the US government having court orders backed by the Patriot Act." The stupidity of that statement goes above and beyond naive. If people could ignore valid court orders or summons or warrants that easily, they'd probably do it all the time. Unfortunatly, doing so results in very bad things, no matter how big of a company you are.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Y2HH

[farmteam]

It was pretty obvious something along these lines was happening, but I do think there's a difference between "Of course the government must be doing this, why wouldn't they?" and "Hey look, the government actually IS doing this." How big of a difference that is depends on the person. For me, the difference isn't that large.

 

I thought John Oliver had the best line on this last week. "Mr. President, we're not saying you did anything illegal. We're just saying, it's a little bit weird you didn't have to."

[Balta1701]

I agree he's not as bad as the others, because at least he had some insight on this, but the way he's trying to come off as a savior via his interviews is making me sick. He also jumps to conclusions as to how business works in the US, simply because he worked for the NSA. The way he's talking, and it bothers me greatly, he's basically saying, "Apple or Google should have denied participation DESPITE the US government having court orders backed by the Patriot Act." The stupidity of that statement goes above and beyond naive. If people could ignore valid court orders or summons or warrants that easily, they'd probably do it all the time. Unfortunatly, doing so results in very bad things, no matter how big of a company you are.

So, I do have one problem with the logic in your initial post. Only 1 of these things can be true...either, as you state, everyone already knew that the NSA was able to do stuff like this and was actively doing so, or this leak is very damaging and has exposed behavior that embarrasses the companies and the US gov't.

 

Both of those can't be true simultaneously. If everyone knew that this was happening, this disclosure wouldn't be hurting those companies.

[farmteam]

I agree he's not as bad as the others, because at least he had some insight on this, but the way he's trying to come off as a savior via his interviews is making me sick. He also jumps to conclusions as to how business works in the US, simply because he worked for the NSA. The way he's talking, and it bothers me greatly, he's basically saying, "Apple or Google should have denied participation DESPITE the US government having court orders backed by the Patriot Act." The stupidity of that statement goes above and beyond naive. If people could ignore valid court orders or summons or warrants that easily, they'd probably do it all the time. Unfortunatly, doing so results in very bad things, no matter how big of a company you are.

This may be true now, but I'm not sure for how much longer.

 

EDIT: Only in respect to corporations on Google's order of magnitude, I meant.

Edited June 17, 2013 by farmteam

[Y2HH]

So, I do have one problem with the logic in your initial post. Only 1 of these things can be true...either, as you state, everyone already knew that the NSA was able to do stuff like this and was actively doing so, or this leak is very damaging and has exposed behavior that embarrasses the companies and the US gov't.

 

Both of those can't be true simultaneously. If everyone knew that this was happening, this disclosure wouldn't be hurting those companies.

 

I think the only thing it did was verify to people that were in denial.

 

The point I'm making is the companies are being unjustly embarrassed. They're complying with legal court orders. Whether we agree with these court orders or not is irrelevant.

[Y2HH]

This may be true now, but I'm not sure for how much longer.

 

EDIT: Only in respect to corporations on Google's order of magnitude, I meant.

 

Then why didn't any of them do it? I have to assume their legal teams understand and explained the consequences.

[Balta1701]

Then why didn't any of them do it? I have to assume their legal teams understand and explained the consequences.

They're not banks. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic).

[Y2HH]

They're not banks. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic).

 

Probably the best answer I've heard, and I'm not sure if I should take it as sarcasm, knowing what we know about what the banks got away with.

[farmteam]

Then why didn't any of them do it? I have to assume their legal teams understand and explained the consequences.

No idea. Maybe it's not at the point yet where the corporations think they can take on the government and win. I'm just saying that I think not too far down the road, a corporation might take that gamble.

 

If they wanted to Google could run a better surveillance network than most countries. For all we know they already do. And, if they were to hypothetically be conducting such a program, they could definitely use it as leverage against the government.

[farmteam]

They're not banks. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic).

I wouldn't know whether to be sarcastic in that situation either.

 

I'm trying to find ways to analogize the Googles of the world to the banks in this context, but I can't quite get it down either.

[Y2HH]

I'm probably being a bit harsher than necessary, but seriously...did anyone here not already know this was going on? I'd use the word assume, but it doesn't seem proper to use post Patriot Act. I assumed the NSA spied on citizens BEFORE the Patriot Act, after they legalized it, I knew. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it legal.

 

I just find it extremely arrogant and hypocritical that a person that actively spied, suddenly turned over a new leaf to "save the people from the evil government", and now he's saying companies like Apple should risk everything and deny court orders, despite the existence of the Patriot Act...because they're so big...they should be able too! Like I said, it seems a bit presumptuous. Apple's legal team alone is probably so massive that I'm sure they looked into every caviot of these court orders, and if they thought they could get away with fighting it, they would have. But I'm betting the Patriot Act (multiple times revised) is pretty bullet proof.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Y2HH

[farmteam]

Maybe he meant that instead of those companies flexing their legal power, they should have flexed their PR power to turn the court of public opinion against the government, regardless of the Patriot Act ostensibly allows.

 

Not sure if it would have worked, but I thought that's what he meant.

[Balta1701]

I'm probably being a bit harsher than necessary, but seriously...did anyone here not already know this was going on? I'd use the word assume, but it doesn't seem proper to use post Patriot Act. I assumed the NSA spied on citizens BEFORE the Patriot Act, after they legalized it, I knew. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it legal.

 

I just find it extremely arrogant and hypocritical that a person that actively spied, suddenly turned over a new leaf to "save the people from the evil government", and now he's saying companies like Apple should risk everything and deny court orders, despite the existence of the Patriot Act...because they're so big...they should be able too! Like I said, it seems a bit presumptuous. Apple's legal team alone is probably so massive that I'm sure they looked into every caviot of these court orders, and if they thought they could get away with fighting it, they would have. But I'm betting the Patriot Act (multiple times revised) is pretty bullet proof.

Here's another of my problems...I don't know exactly what I knew. I knew that the Bush administration started vacuuming up enormous amounts of data in an illegal fashion prior to 2006, and that much of that was then legalized (with, I note, Obama voting for it), but I don't know that I knew what was legalized.

 

I knew the NSA had grown, but I really didn't know how big the web of contractors had gotten.

 

I knew they were sifting through data, but I had no idea they were building a data storage center out West that will make Google look small.

 

I didn't know there was such a thing as a "yottabyte".

 

I've learned some stuff about what they're actually doing thanks to this leak in particular, but I'm not sure what I've learned...I don't have the information to put it into context, and perhaps that continues to be what's troubling me the most. I can't make a judgment about whether or not the program is appropriate because I don't know its extent. I can't judge whether or not the program is appropriate because I don't know what the safeguards are. I don't know what would happen if something was done wrong (here's a report on the NSA listening in on phone sex from 2009).

 

Perhaps most troublesome, I can't evaluate whether it's a good use of skills and money or not. Maybe it has thwarted a dozen 9/11 style attacks. Maybe it prevented a Boston bombing. Maybe if we took the $10-$20 billion its spending per year (or more) and put it towards police on the streets or health care we'd save 100x as many lives.

 

I don't know. I do know that I'm closer to having some of those answers today than I was before this guy came forwards, and I think that's positive.

[Y2HH]

Maybe he meant that instead of those companies flexing their legal power, they should have flexed their PR power to turn the court of public opinion against the government, regardless of the Patriot Act ostensibly allows.

 

Not sure if it would have worked, but I thought that's what he meant.

 

It probably is what he means, but I don't think the court of public opinion matters...at all, and the Government knows it. After all, in the public's opinion, The US Congress has an approval rating of what, 10%? Yet 90% of the incumbents will be re-elected. The same ones that wrote, revised and continue to pass the Patriot Act in specific. Probably without reading it.

[Y2HH]

I don't know. I do know that I'm closer to having some of those answers today than I was before this guy came forwards, and I think that's positive.

 

I agree with most of what you wrote in that post up until this part...

 

Do you know that your closer to having some of these answers? Or are you simply being bombarded with so much additional information, some of which may not be correct, or in proper context, that you're more confused now than ever before?

 

I'm betting that some of what Snowden is saying is factual...annnnnd I'm betting that some of it's stretching the truth, at best.

 

If people had an attention span, I may have a different opinion on this matter...but I know how people are. And in a few months, when this is long forgotten, and people are okay with being spied on (you're already see this), none of this will matter.

[Balta1701]

I agree with most of what you wrote in that post up until this part...

 

Do you know that your closer to having some of these answers? Or are you simply being bombarded with so much additional information, some of which may not be correct, or in proper context, that you're more confused now than ever before?

 

I'm betting that some of what Snowden is saying is factual...annnnnd I'm betting that some of it's stretching the truth, at best.

 

If people had an attention span, I may have a different opinion on this matter...but I know how people are. And in a few months, when this is long forgotten, and people are okay with being spied on (you're already see this), none of this will matter.

Yes, I'd say I'm closer to having those answers...because people are acting positively based on his words. Even if he's overstepped reality on several issues, Google and Facebook now have to deal with the fact that they want to be international companies based in a country that has access to their entire network if it wants it. The rest of the world isn't going to sit around and let their citizens be monitored without taking some sort of action or at least trying to get public guarantees. And Google et al. won't want their business undermined, so they'll want to bring forwards more information about what they actually turn over.

 

On top of that, there are the occasional senator who will keep focus on this (Merkey in Oregon comes to mind in particular), and finally...he's probably not the only person who works for one of these contractors who doesn't feel right about what he's doing, and that's going to continue dragging this program into the light.

 

I read this somewhere about the drone strikes but I think it applies here too. If every terrorist knows that the NSA is out there spying on their communications and taking steps to protect their data, as you say...then who is the secrecy aimed at? If this leak hasn't told a terrorist anything useful...and I'm not sure it has...then this secrecy is to protect the program from us. It's not to protect the program's effectiveness, it's to protect it from evaluation.

 

There was no reason for the U.S. government to deny that drone strikes happened for years. It's not like an Al Qaeda militant couldn't see the crater in the ground. Those denials were to try to protect the program from being evaluated by the people, and the secrecy here seems similar to me. That, perhaps, is what troubles me the most.

[Y2HH]

Yes, I'd say I'm closer to having those answers...because people are acting positively based on his words. Even if he's overstepped reality on several issues, Google and Facebook now have to deal with the fact that they want to be international companies based in a country that has access to their entire network if it wants it. The rest of the world isn't going to sit around and let their citizens be monitored without taking some sort of action or at least trying to get public guarantees. And Google et al. won't want their business undermined, so they'll want to bring forwards more information about what they actually turn over.

 

On top of that, there are the occasional senator who will keep focus on this (Merkey in Oregon comes to mind in particular), and finally...he's probably not the only person who works for one of these contractors who doesn't feel right about what he's doing, and that's going to continue dragging this program into the light.

 

I read this somewhere about the drone strikes but I think it applies here too. If every terrorist knows that the NSA is out there spying on their communications and taking steps to protect their data, as you say...then who is the secrecy aimed at? If this leak hasn't told a terrorist anything useful...and I'm not sure it has...then this secrecy is to protect the program from us. It's not to protect the program's effectiveness, it's to protect it from evaluation.

 

There was no reason for the U.S. government to deny that drone strikes happened for years. It's not like an Al Qaeda militant couldn't see the crater in the ground. Those denials were to try to protect the program from being evaluated by the people, and the secrecy here seems similar to me. That, perhaps, is what troubles me the most.

 

I agree on the bold, wholeheartedly.

 

But, this is what happens when you forfeit freedom for a false sense of security. And then continue to re-elect those that took those freedoms from you/us, again, all for a false sense of security. We allowed them to do it at airports, and here we are, years later with them continuing to use security methods and systems that have been proven to not work, and we are going to allow them to do this, too...because, well...it's legal. They're not doing anything wrong, technically...and since the people will re-elect the same people, nothing will change.

 

The beauty of that law, now that it's in effect, is it's IMPOSSIBLE to judge in terms of effectiveness. They [The US Govt] can now come forward with hundreds of "thwarted acts of terror because of the Patriot Act", that will be impossible to disprove. Not only that, but the burden of DISproof will be laid on the table, which, as you know, disproving something is the opposite of what's supposed to be done, but that's exactly how it'll go down.

 

And Google, and the rest of these glorified spyware companies (including Apple, but to a lesser extent than the likes of Goog/FB), are partially to blame with this "big brother is okay" mentality people have today. They've made it acceptable to give away unknown amounts of data for who knows what reason, for who knows how long...and nobody seems to care. Totally reminds of me that George Carlin skit...

[EvilMonkey]

if he goes to a newspaper or his superiors, he can be a whistleblower. Going off to China and considering retirement in Russia makes him a traitor in my eyes. We can catch China doing the same stuff red-handed, and the 'court of public opinion' really doesn't do s***, since they are all afraid of China. However the US gets caught doing this and we are expected to prostrate ourselves before the world in shame.