Page 24 of 76 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 760

Thread: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    These people aren't heroes, that's for damn sure. It's the new age of espionage, just dump restricted info onto the public domain where it's easily accessible to the enemy and call it "whistleblowing". What a ****ing joke. Hang them, and see how many still think treason is just another jolly pass-time with no consequences, because they obviously don't care about the people leaked intel kills.
    I consider it treasonous to knowingly allow the government to violate the Bill of Rights without speaking out. If it doesn't respect the Bill of Rights our government is not worth protecting.

    The information he released does not reveal the identity of any agents (per the press accounts) it is about the blanket searches of telephone and internet company records that has been happening.

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    It's never Conservatives "fault"..............Even when they come up with bad laws, the laws only become bad because Democrats found a loophole................Talk about being in denial...................
    Listen and learn. Senator Barack Obama. 2007
    "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are.
    Obama also declared that "the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers":
    "We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 06-10-13 at 07:06 PM.

  3. #233
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I think my recollection is pretty accurate. They didn't just find a loophole, they found a black hole.
    Many conservatives here have stated something along the lines of "it was "understood" originally that any focus would be narrow.......................Which was exactly why the law was criticized to begin with, because it was open to several versions of "understanding"..................

  4. #234
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    aren't the companys who took part in the this also responsible for violating the constitution.
    They probably have language in in the fine print of their agreements with customers that protects them.

  5. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Listen and learn. Senator Barack Obama. 2007
    "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are.
    Obama also declared that "the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers":
    "We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."
    I was expecting Obama to get rid of the Patriot Act. You don't have a problem with the Patriot Act, you have a problem with the Dark Ages being over.........................

  6. #236
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,006

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I think your interpretation of the quote is a bit too simplistic. Franklin's meaning is that any minor level of security you gain from any freedom surrendered is undeserved.
    That doesn't change anything.

    Again: There is always a tradeoff between privacy and law enforcement. Is it feasible to get rid of the police? Wiretaps? Police searches? Should we say that the police are completely barred from stopping citizens and asking questions? Should the police be barred from entering an apartment when actively chasing a subject?

    We cannot choose "freedom" exclusively, as then we would have no law enforcement capabilities whatsoever. That's simply not an option. We need to make reasonable and deliberate choices about the trade-offs between security and liberty.


    In the case of the NSA dragnet the system takes away everyone's right to privacy in order to save us each from a terrorist threat that, on an individual basis, is very small.
    Americans have spent the past decade demanding more and more protections from terrorists. The Patriot Act was not passed in secret. The Patriot Act was not renewed in secret. The phone surveillance is far from new -- we've known about it for a few years now. Public outcry at the time was... muted.

    We don't know a lot about PRISM yet. What we do know is that the NSA has been building a mammoth facility in a Utah desert. We also know that the Internet was not designed with security in mind, that email and HTTP are completely unsecured in transit, and that the companies who provide us all these wonderful services at no cost have long since shredded our privacy. Scott McNeally didn't intend it as a warning, but was telling us that we had no privacy on the Internet back in 1999.

    To me, the shocking part is that people don't realize that the NSA has been tracking everything they can suck up into their databases. (As have Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Amazon and pretty much every major technology and social media company.)

    On a side note, the US does not have any real privacy protections. It has no explicit protections in our Constitution, and our legislators don't take it very seriously. In contrast, the EU has much stricter privacy protections and regulations.

    We have the option to get serious about reining in government. We shouldn't need a military contractor violating espionage laws to tell us to get serious.


    History as shown Franklin to be wise since most dictatorships are built on an incremental abdication of freedom in order to combat some perceived enemy.
    No, actually, it hasn't.

    Lots of dictatorships and totalitarian states rise to power fairly quickly, and clamp down afterwards. E.g. Iran went from the Shah's government collapsing, to Islamic hard-liners taking control, in 6-8 months, and it was after they took power that they clamped down. The Nazis suspended a whole bunch of civil liberties in 1933, pretty much in a matter of months. When the PRC took over, they didn't wait around to set up a police state; neither did the Japanese when they invaded Manchuria.

    A coup, by definition, is not an incremental process. And plenty of authoritarian governments gained power in coups.

    It can also take long histories and traditions of authoritarianism to produce a political environment conducive to authoritarian control. Europe, for example, had centuries of monarchical and feudal rule, and relatively short periods of electoral rule before the paroxysms of totalitarianism in the 30s and 40s.

    We've also seen plenty of instances of electoral governments going back and forth on intrusive policies. McCarthy became increasingly authoritarian in his pursuit of anti-Communism, and after a few years of hysteria the nation pulled back from that brink. Domestic spying was curtailed (though not stopped completely) for a few decades, when COINTELPRO was shut down. The US is slowly relaxing its intense desire to suspend every civil liberty in the name of fighting terrorism.

    Basically, it's not valid to oppose every policy on the grounds that it "might" be an incremental step towards totalitarianism. That rhetorical flourish could be -- no, is -- used to oppose such a wide variety of policies, that it detracts from formulating more precise guidelines about what should or should not be acceptable.

  7. #237
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    I was expecting Obama to get rid of the Patriot Act. You don't have a problem with the Patriot Act, you have a problem with the Dark Ages being over.........................
    Well, Obama not only did not get rid of it, he expanded it 10-fold beyond both its intent and according to Rep Sensenbrenner, who wrote it, the letter of it as well.

    I got a big ****ing problem with it all, and you sure s **** do not speak for me.

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Well, Obama not only did not get rid of it, he expanded it 10-fold beyond both its intent and according to Rep Sensenbrenner, who wrote it, the letter of it as well.

    I got a big ****ing problem with it all, and you sure s **** do not speak for me.
    Sensenbrenner is CA's Michele Bachman.........................

  9. #239
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    Sensenbrenner is CA's Michele Bachman.........................
    i believe sensenbrenner is one of Wisconsin's congressmen.

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonzai View Post
    Sensenbrenner is CA's Michele Bachman.........................
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    i believe sensenbrenner is one of Wisconsin's congressmen.
    LOL .. you beat me to it. However, it would appear we are debating one with less than a full deck ..............

Page 24 of 76 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •