• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

Exactly! There's a balance between freedom and safety. 100% of either is very bad. NSA has the mission of providing safety. The legislative and judicial branches have the mission (among many others) of ensuring that it does that without compromising freedom. Seems to me the system is working but...perhaps some guys on the internet who are involved in none of those three organizations know better.

It really all boils down to how blindly you're willing to trust the government. Some people could never imagine the possibility of the government misusing there resources, and these are the ones that often remark "I've got nothing to hide, the government can monitor all the calls of mine they want". The problem here is that this information is stored, for anyone who knows how to get access to it. This also is the same government that in the past few years have cracked down on political opponents, seized information from reporters, and have murdered it's own citizens without a trial.

How far does a government need to go before one starts to get concerned?
 
See, if this was agreed upon by everyone, you'd have a point. But instead, your argument basically rests upon this statement as if it's a universal fact. Well, it's not. That's the rub.

From all I've seen the NSA has nearly blanket coverage of all communications - that data is being collected. At the very least, the who, what, when and where is being collected, if not the content, and whether the content is being gathered is subject to controversy. And so the only check on it is their ability to look at it. But do you trust NSA, and all future NSA's to not look at data they have? If you're a protester, activist, what I think you MUST assume is that ALL your communications are monitored, collected, and viewed by the police state. It's just a more effective version of the Stasi.

And beyond that, the only reason we think we might know SOME of what NSA is doing (which NSA officials have repeatedly lied about, or told deliberate half truths) is because of the Snowden leaks.

What some people have objected to is Snowden's leaks of programs we use to spy on other nations - including pretty massive efforts of industrial espionage. Well, either we believe in the right to privacy or we don't. It's not a consistent position to protect the right to privacy of AMERICAN CITIZENS, but then believe all other world inhabitants deserve zero privacy, if their personal information benefits the U.S.
 
What a putz this guy is....I hope when he is caught he spends the rest of his natural life behind bars.

I wish the NSA would be thrown in jail instead.
 
America needs more selfless patriots like Edward Snowden. Especially in the government. He pretty much ruined his own life in the name of our freedom.

Selfless patriots the likes of Snowden are far and few between.
 
Oh please. X Factor was just being dishonest. He knows perfectly well that the U S Government and it's allies hemmed him in. Snowden is using the Russians to remain free, while the Russians are using him to embarrass our government. This gives the opportunity for our government to try to propagandize about some kind of clandestine relationship. The stupid ignorantly parrot this idea, while the intelligent dishonestly do so.

Can't find a picture of a hammer hitting a nail square on at present but, imagine it.
 
I wonder how you know that the vast majority of them have no problem with what the NSA does?

The NSA is compartmentalized and as such the vast majority of the NSA doesn't know what the vast majority of the NSA does. Even then I don't know that there has been any published survey or research regarding the question.



I'll take "Something else" for $50, Bob.

Perhaps we should ask Snowden why no one speaks out publicly.

Yeah, most people value their jobs, makes it very difficult to call your employer out. And seeing Snowden treatment, isn't motivational. People continue to forget that amongst candidate Obama's promises were increased protections for whistleblowers. Well, he's prosecuted more of them then any predecessor, surprised?
 
Trusting the FISA has prudent oversight is comical.

How Three Decades Of Conservative Chief Justices Turned The FISA Court Into A Rubber Stamp
from the FISC:-both-the-wheels-AND-the-grease dept
The FISA court has been deemed a "rubber stamp" and with good reason. Not a single request was rejected over the last two years and over the last twelve years, the court has only rejected 10 out of 20,909 requests.

FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests

Now who thinks our scandal ridden cumbersome government has gotten it right 99.7% of the time.

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/10/190453533/fisa-court-has-approved-majority-of-surveillance-warrants

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ces-turned-fisa-court-into-rubber-stamp.shtml
 
Last edited:
It really all boils down to how blindly you're willing to trust the government. Some people could never imagine the possibility of the government misusing there resources, and these are the ones that often remark "I've got nothing to hide, the government can monitor all the calls of mine they want". The problem here is that this information is stored, for anyone who knows how to get access to it. This also is the same government that in the past few years have cracked down on political opponents, seized information from reporters, and have murdered it's own citizens without a trial.

How far does a government need to go before one starts to get concerned?

It also boils down to how much experience you have with the agency and discipline in question.
 
Well, some people consider the FISA courts to be meaningful restraints. Certainly legal restraint. I mean according to those federal judges, anyway. And near blanket coverage is simply not true, period. Unless you have a very liberal definition of "near".

You mean the secret court that issues secret orders? Yeah, sure, I am satisfied with that restraint, especially since in this courtroom there is no advocate present except the government wanting information.

And "near blanket" is obviously a loose term, but what we do know is the information gathered is indiscriminate. It's how they can do three hop analyses off a suspect. So if a journalist calls a contact in the Afghanistan government, and that contact calls his third cousin, who has a son working for a charity that five years later becomes a suspect in an investigation, all the journalist's records are fair game, and that's if they go by the rules. And of course, they have to have had all those records to search, going back years, which they DO have. Obviously, any journalist doing investigative work, or any activist or protester or other person doing anything the government doesn't like much, likely falls into dozens of three hop analyses, and so can have their records legally examined.

Do you wonder why, of the 40,000+ folks who work at NSA, the vast, vast majority of them have no problem with what it does? They who know much more of it than normal folks? Is it because they're all bad people? Dumb? Or could it be something else?

What strikes me there is the casual reference to 40,000 individuals at NSA, with a mostly black budget doing stuff no one knows about..... FORTY THOUSAND employees! And that surely doesn't include at least 10s of thousands of other employees at private companies doing NSA work. That's a whole lot of folks doing work we can't know anything about...

But as to your question, I have no doubt almost all of the employees think they're doing, and ARE doing, important work for the benefit of the U.S. But that's irrelevant because if that information is gathered about YOU, and you're a political opponent of the current administration, or an activist, or a protester, or a whistle blower, then it's a database query to get all YOUR records, and all you can do is 'trust' the government not to abuse the powers we gave them. Sorry, but if you're working against, say, a corrupt government and then trusting that corrupt government to not use information it has gathered on you, you're not thinking about this very clearly.
 
From all I've seen the NSA has nearly blanket coverage of all communications - that data is being collected. At the very least, the who, what, when and where is being collected, if not the content, and whether the content is being gathered is subject to controversy. And so the only check on it is their ability to look at it.

Content, no. Otherwise, yes. They're always going to have the ability to do it, so all you're proposing is one more check than is currently available: don't use that ability.

But do you trust NSA, and all future NSA's to not look at data they have? If you're a protester, activist, what I think you MUST assume is that ALL your communications are monitored, collected, and viewed by the police state. It's just a more effective version of the Stasi.

It's not that effective: I've worked there. So "trust" becomes a bit silly because that's all anyone has, right? Do you 'trust' a court do rule in your favor? Do you 'trust' all of your neighbors to not steal your stuff? Do you 'trust' all the other drivers on the road?

And beyond that, the only reason we think we might know SOME of what NSA is doing (which NSA officials have repeatedly lied about, or told deliberate half truths) is because of the Snowden leaks.

And it did no good whatsoever. Just hurt American intelligence collection capabilities. Not a huge fan of that, myself.

What some people have objected to is Snowden's leaks of programs we use to spy on other nations - including pretty massive efforts of industrial espionage. Well, either we believe in the right to privacy or we don't. It's not a consistent position to protect the right to privacy of AMERICAN CITIZENS, but then believe all other world inhabitants deserve zero privacy, if their personal information benefits the U.S.

What? Are you proposing that intelligence collection everywhere just stop? That's funny you brought up trust before. Do you just "trust" that other nations don't do it and utilize to their advantage? Enough that the US should stop doing so? That's a lot of trust from some guy that doesn't trust a bunch of people that live in the Baltimore suburbs and considers them the equivalent of the Stasi, don't ya think?
 
You mean the secret court that issues secret orders? Yeah, sure, I am satisfied with that restraint, especially since in this courtroom there is no advocate present except the government wanting information.

Oh, I'm content with it. Do you suggest that court be open to the public? Do you think that would defeat the purpose in any way?

And "near blanket" is obviously a loose term, but what we do know is the information gathered is indiscriminate. It's how they can do three hop analyses off a suspect. So if a journalist calls a contact in the Afghanistan government, and that contact calls his third cousin, who has a son working for a charity that five years later becomes a suspect in an investigation, all the journalist's records are fair game, and that's if they go by the rules. And of course, they have to have had all those records to search, going back years, which they DO have. Obviously, any journalist doing investigative work, or any activist or protester or other person doing anything the government doesn't like much, likely falls into dozens of three hop analyses, and so can have their records legally examined.

I'm quite positive I know how call chain analysis is done. I also know that what you're talking about is considered reverse targeting, and is highly illegal.

What strikes me there is the casual reference to 40,000 individuals at NSA, with a mostly black budget doing stuff no one knows about..... FORTY THOUSAND employees! And that surely doesn't include at least 10s of thousands of other employees at private companies doing NSA work. That's a whole lot of folks doing work we can't know anything about...

They're just normal folks...did you ever say what you thought they were? Are they supposedly evil?

But as to your question, I have no doubt almost all of the employees think they're doing, and ARE doing, important work for the benefit of the U.S. But that's irrelevant because if that information is gathered about YOU, and you're a political opponent of the current administration, or an activist, or a protester, or a whistle blower, then it's a database query to get all YOUR records, and all you can do is 'trust' the government not to abuse the powers we gave them. Sorry, but if you're working against, say, a corrupt government and then trusting that corrupt government to not use information it has gathered on you, you're not thinking about this very clearly.

I'm thinking about it pretty clearly. You're just saying that it can be used for illegal means at some point. I agree, it could. So could guns. What should we do about it?
 
It also boils down to how much experience you have with the agency and discipline in question.

I doubt very many people have the needed experience. Though considering you have about a million and a half people with top secret clearance, I suppose that pool is growing larger all the time...

For the rest though that don't all they have to rely on is how much faith they put in the government. It was good to see though that the majority of Americans weren't willing to make that leap.
 
I doubt very many people have the needed experience. Though considering you have about a million and a half people with top secret clearance, I suppose that pool is growing larger all the time...

For the rest though that don't all they have to rely on is how much faith they put in the government. It was good to see though that the majority of Americans weren't willing to make that leap.

I think it'd be better to trust people with that knowledge and experience than just like...a physician in North Dakota or a cable guy in Orlando, but...I guess that's just me. Thankfully, our policy-makers still side with me, we haven't yet fully embraced know-nothingism as a national defense policy.
 
I doubt very many people have the needed experience. Though considering you have about a million and a half people with top secret clearance, I suppose that pool is growing larger all the time...

For the rest though that don't all they have to rely on is how much faith they put in the government. It was good to see though that the majority of Americans weren't willing to make that leap.

Saying that people who want comprehensive reforms at the NSA, think that as a national defense policy that we need to know nothing, is just a false dichotomy. What does it say of the government if they think that for the US to defend itself, it must spy on its own citizens?? No, HELL NO! Not only are the American citizens against this, reforms to the NSA has had BI-partisan support in Washington.

On Wednesday, May 7, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the “USA Freedom Act,” written by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). The bill has received broad support from privacy and civil liberties groups. Sensenbrenner says he wants to make it clear that Congress does not support current NSA spying and data collection programs............

http://ivn.us/2014/05/08/house-committee-unanimously-passes-bill-reform-nsa-spying/
 
Last edited:
You're loud & clear.

:cool:
 
What a putz this guy is....I hope when he is caught he spends the rest of his natural life behind bars.

Seeing anybody draped in the American flag makes me swoon.
 
have a bad feeling we'll have to spend the next few decades watching this guy b!tch and complain about wanting to come home. You wanted to be famous pal, and you got what you wanted. Now enjoy your lifetime stay in Siberia!
 
Oh, I'm content with it. Do you suggest that court be open to the public? Do you think that would defeat the purpose in any way?

Of course the decisions should be made public. If FBI goes in and asks to get a wiretap for individual Y, or whatever, that's fine, keep it secret and release the aggregated data. But you know that some of their decisions have the effect of making law, and VASTLY altering and expanding the powers of the intelligence agencies to collect and disseminate raw personal data. The Verizon order by the FISA court (leaked by Snowden) required Verizon to turn over to FBI/NSA ALL call metadata. Damn right we have a right to know that information is being collected by our government, and the only way we know that today is Snowden leaked a secret court order.

And, sure, disclosure defeats the purpose of secret surveillance. But government shouldn't gain the authority to gather ALL the call metadata from all our phone conversations through a secret court order. If we can't keep ourselves safe without a secret police state, then we have a choice as a society about what to to. You're suggesting that we have no right to MAKE a choice - NSA and the FISA court and small intelligence committees who cannot disclose their decisions make them FOR US.

I'm quite positive I know how call chain analysis is done. I also know that what you're talking about is considered reverse targeting, and is highly illegal.

But that's only part of the problem. Would you accept having your house searched from top to bottom because you're three hops from a suspected murderer? Of course not. But you want us to accept that our electronic records be subject to such searches for the same reason? It's an extraordinary power to grant our intelligence/police agencies. At the very least we should have public debates about these things and make those type decisions in the open, not in secret.

They're just normal folks...did you ever say what you thought they were? Are they supposedly evil?

Right, and I'm sure almost all of them are doing great work, are fine patriots, etc. No sarcasm intended - I've got family involved in stuff that I have NO IDEA what they're doing - it's secret enough their spouses (supposedly) have no idea what they're doing, but I trust them and know they believe in their work. But I think rational people should be wary of that kind of power being wielded in near total darkness from accountability to the people they're tasked to protect.

I'm thinking about it pretty clearly. You're just saying that it can be used for illegal means at some point. I agree, it could. So could guns. What should we do about it?

All we can do is have transparency and accountability. Before Snowden, we couldn't possible hold our intelligence agencies accountable because almost no one knew what they were doing.
 
Of course the decisions should be made public. If FBI goes in and asks to get a wiretap for individual Y, or whatever, that's fine, keep it secret and release the aggregated data. But you know that some of their decisions have the effect of making law, and VASTLY altering and expanding the powers of the intelligence agencies to collect and disseminate raw personal data. The Verizon order by the FISA court (leaked by Snowden) required Verizon to turn over to FBI/NSA ALL call metadata. Damn right we have a right to know that information is being collected by our government, and the only way we know that today is Snowden leaked a secret court order.

Why? All that did was alert people to a capability. For what? Curiosity? That the government, with a court order, can look at what Verizon already had but wasn't storing? I fail to see how that's a good thing.

And, sure, disclosure defeats the purpose of secret surveillance. But government shouldn't gain the authority to gather ALL the call metadata from all our phone conversations through a secret court order. If we can't keep ourselves safe without a secret police state, then we have a choice as a society about what to to. You're suggesting that we have no right to MAKE a choice - NSA and the FISA court and small intelligence committees who cannot disclose their decisions make them FOR US.

That's what a government does. You elect people to make those choices. That's what they did and that's what they continue to do, thankfully. Keeping Verizon's records in order to look at them later with a court order is a "secret police state"? That's just silly hyperbole, like saying that a social security number is akin to being tattooed with a number in a concentration camp. What's served by such hyperbole? Seriously, what's the point? Again, thankfully policymakers rarely fall for such things. This is national defense, not an opportunity for ridiculous exaggerations.

But that's only part of the problem. Would you accept having your house searched from top to bottom because you're three hops from a suspected murderer? Of course not. But you want us to accept that our electronic records be subject to such searches for the same reason? It's an extraordinary power to grant our intelligence/police agencies. At the very least we should have public debates about these things and make those type decisions in the open, not in secret.

I don't think anyone wants their house searched, but if a federal judge issues a warrant for it what are you going to do? These people interpret the laws. Do you want laws or not? I don't want to be pulled over for speeding, but ya know, I realize that it's probably a good idea to have speed limits in certain places. "Do you want your house searched?" is a silly argument. Ask someone "Do you want to be restricted from some places?" and I'm sure the answer is no. I'm also sure that same person would realize that nuclear power plants should have some restrictions on who traipses around in them. Again, freedom vs security.

Right, and I'm sure almost all of them are doing great work, are fine patriots, etc. No sarcasm intended - I've got family involved in stuff that I have NO IDEA what they're doing - it's secret enough their spouses (supposedly) have no idea what they're doing, but I trust them and know they believe in their work. But I think rational people should be wary of that kind of power being wielded in near total darkness from accountability to the people they're tasked to protect.

But there IS accountability. There's the whole legislative branch, that we voted on for precisely these kinds of things! People in the judicial branch dedicate their professional lives to the pursuit of law and are appointed by the people we vote to lead us for precisely these things! It's not to be discussed in the pages of USA Today or on the 6 o'clock news.

All we can do is have transparency and accountability. Before Snowden, we couldn't possible hold our intelligence agencies accountable because almost no one knew what they were doing.

This is our fundamental disagreement: I don't think intelligence operations should be transparent to the public. Absolutely not. I believe they need accountability, and that that stems from legislative and judicial branches- not from the media and not from the general public.
 
Snowden can shove that flag right up his ass.

There are things that should not be done to the flag. That would be very high on the list.

Edit: using it as a prop to buy sympathy is also high on the list.
 
Patriotism isn't about obeying the law or loyalty to the government. It's about being loyal to the country and the ideals it was founded on. Arguably, Snowden showed that more than any other scumbag in the NSA. At least he didn't feel the need to boldface lie to the American public about the government's surveillance habits.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the founding fathers would have reacted to some one who leaked their secret documents? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest they would have not treated him well...
 
Dood, he didn't run to the Russians. Who told you that? Do you realize how it can to be that he was stranded in Russia?

Stranded in Russia by his own actions. If you break the law, you cannot cry that people want to charge you with a crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom