Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[AndyH]

I agree as well that you're life isn't likely to change - you'll continue to be in the 'target pool'. My life, however, has already changed as a result of this. Nearly all of my web interactions now are done on encrypted connections. I've changed my on-line security practices and done other things as well.

May I ask why you encrypt stuff, now that are you are no longer a target?

This seems to be the largest area you're not yet grasping, Klapauzius - no American citizen in the US or anywhere else in the world is supposed to be a target! The simple fact that that we now ARE means the 'rule of law' has been broken or twisted to no longer be about supporting the citizenry.

It's not about 'why should we keep using a 200 year old Constitution written by a bunch of dead white guys?' - it's about 1. the Constitution and bill of rights and 2. 200 or so years of law that has grown and evolved from that. The point, Klap, is that the 4th amendment says that before someone can break down my door and take my computer that they need probable cause that I'm committing a crime and they need a search warrant. The mass collection program completely circumvents that 'rule of law' - and that means the 4th Amendment is another of our rights that's been eroded since 9/11. It's not the only one!

So no - don't try to oversimplify or broad-brush this - it's not about encrypting a search engine link or connection to Youtube - it's about the fundamental loss of a basic right that we've enjoyed in this country for 200+ years - and we didn't get a vote.

[Nubo]

Guilty of course is an interpretable word....Also obviously, the perpetrators of 9/11 were not "guilty" BEFORE they did what they did?

Yes, they were guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. But that doesn't give the government unlimited powers to listen and track everyone's communications "just in case" they are the 1 in a million who may be conspiring.

One the hand we want to protect the individual from the state as much as possible, on the other hand we now live in a world, where a handful of individuals can cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, if left unchecked.

Handfuls of individuals have been causing death and destruction since time immemorial, and it shows no signs of ending. How many people have been murdered at the hands of their fellow citizens in this country since 9/11? Far more than were killed on that day. So I disagree with the notion that this is a "new world" where the concepts of American justice are somehow a luxury we can no longer afford.

The saddest part of all this is that the "bad guys" aren't going to be easily caught in this web. If you were a bad guy, wouldn't you take measures to avoid it? There's no need to be traceable in your communications if you don't wish to be.

Just like taking your shoes off in the airport, this gives the appearance of security. It's inconvenient and humiliating, so it must be helping!

[klapauzius]

Yes, they were guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. But that doesn't give the government unlimited powers to listen and track everyone's communications "just in case" they are the 1 in a million who may be conspiring.

I think this is one approach they are trying. I dont think it will be very successful, but the whole "big data" hype has certainly not passed them.

But has any information obtained in this manner be allowed as evidence in court? I suspect not?

Handfuls of individuals have been causing death and destruction since time immemorial, and it shows no signs of ending. How many people have been murdered at the hands of their fellow citizens in this country since 9/11? Far more than were killed on that day. So I disagree with the notion that this is a "new world" where the concepts of American justice are somehow a luxury we can no longer afford.

The saddest part of all this is that the "bad guys" aren't going to be easily caught in this web. If you were a bad guy, wouldn't you take measures to avoid it? There's no need to be traceable in your communications if you don't wish to be.

Just like taking your shoes off in the airport, this gives the appearance of security. It's inconvenient and humiliating, so it must be helping!

The perception of death and destruction has changed a big deal, and the speed at which news about such events spread as well.

I dont think this implies we have to somehow trade freedom for security, but it requires prudence that takes the new situation into account.

The shoe thing is annoying (and since the underwear bomber, you wonder why they dont go one step further), but do not underestimate human psychology...perceived safety is for most good enough.

[AndyH]

But has any information obtained in this manner be allowed as evidence in court? I suspect not?

You suspect incorrectly. In addition, nobody needs to use results of traffic analysis in court since it allows connecting (or mangling of) plenty of other info that is or can be used completely independently of the bulk collection or results of analysis.

http://rt.com/usa/aclu-florida-stingray-cell-822/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/n ... e-programs

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/fbi-occupy/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Go ... y_Movement
http://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... rotest.pdf

In January 2012, international human rights and U.S. civil liberties experts at seven law
school clinics across the United States formed the Protest and Assembly Rights Project. This
joint project investigated the United States response to Occupy Wall Street in light of the
government’s international legal obligations.

http://progressive.org/spying-on-ccupy-activists

And the documents reveal that law enforcement, from Homeland Security and the U.S. Capitol Police Office of Intelligence Analysis down to the Phoenix Police Department, monitored activists who opposed the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the President the right to toss any person into jail and deprive that person of due process.
The documents obtained by DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy jibe with other evidence about the role of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local law enforcement in tracking the Occupy movement and other leftwing activism.

Enjoy this one:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178711/do ... ring-link#
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... ey-charges

The prosecution’s case that by posting the hyperlink Brown had engaged in the transmission of stolen property had prompted widespread alarm among First Amendment lawyers, campaigners, news organisations as well as other publishers who feared it would send a chill across the internet. Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment expert who is legal counsel for the American Society of News Editors, told the Guardian that: “If we can be held criminally liable for hyperlinking to a website, the implications are profound.”

[klapauzius]

But has any information obtained in this manner be allowed as evidence in court? I suspect not?

You suspect incorrectly. In addition, nobody needs to use results of traffic analysis in court since it allows connecting (or mangling of) plenty of other info that is or can be used completely independently of the bulk collection or results of analysis.

Andy, I randomly checked 2 of the links you provided (sorry no time for more), http://rt.com/usa/aclu-florida-stingray-cell-822/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/fbi-occupy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and the reports there do discuss matters related, particularly that the Florida police is using technical means to spy on suspects and that the FBI was watching the occupy movement.

Nothing about the admissibility of illegally obtained information in the courts though?

If you say that nobody needs this kind of information, but it can be used to guide investigators to other, legally usable evidence, then you are implying that this is actually a good method to sort out (and convict) bad guys. Was that your intention?

[AndyH]

But has any information obtained in this manner be allowed as evidence in court? I suspect not?

You suspect incorrectly. In addition, nobody needs to use results of traffic analysis in court since it allows connecting (or mangling of) plenty of other info that is or can be used completely independently of the bulk collection or results of analysis.

Andy, I randomly checked 2 of the links you provided (sorry no time for more), http://rt.com/usa/aclu-florida-stingray-cell-822/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/fbi-occupy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and the reports there do discuss matters related, particularly that the Florida police is using technical means to spy on suspects and that the FBI was watching the occupy movement.

Nothing about the admissibility of illegally obtained information in the courts though?

If you say that nobody needs this kind of information, but it can be used to guide investigators to other, legally usable evidence, then you are implying that this is actually a good method to sort out (and convict) bad guys. Was that your intention?

Klapauzius, I'm sorry man but I'm no longer going to go around in circles with you debating meaningless tangents while you continually appear to miss the central point that is a concern. In addition, I'm bothered that you keep telling me that I'm saying other than I am saying. This is not a simple subject - you'll have to do more than just hit a random link. No snark - simple fact. And why/how in the world are you looking for 'illegally obtained information' anyway? The point of this is that the information is unfortunately all too 'legal'.

Journalists will not be privy to classified information unless leaked; same for law enforcement or judges. If used in court, it will not be in a public setting and no journalist will be present. Therefore, you will not find a newspaper link that gives you the information you seek.

You can confirm what I'm saying by looking through the information available on Bradley/Chelsea Manning's trial. Note that it was a military court martial and that not all of it was open to the public. Same for military tribunals of Guantanamo prisoners. Courts Martial and military tribunals can be controlled - civilian courts generally cannot. I suspect that's why some politicians don't want Guantanamo prisoners brought to the US mainland for civilian trial. One can also watch House and Senate sessions - they work with unclassified information in open session often available on CSPAN; classified hearings are closed and not televised.

If you don't read anything else, read this short document on one of the Guantanamo hearings. Note all the words about 'closed sessions', disclosure of classified, sealed records, etc.
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/201 ... .So.56.pdf

MILITARY COMMISSIONS TRIAL JUDICIARY
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

The Military Judge may close all or a portion of Commission proceedings upon
appropriate findings in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 949d(c) and R.M.C. 806(b)(2).

10 U.S.C. § 949d(c):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47A/IV/949d

...protect information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nformation

If you want to know more, you'll have to click and read. I cannot help you further.

[AndyH]

Point/counterpoint via TED

Edward Snowden


Richard Ledgett, Deputy Director of the NSA

[timhebb]

My takeaway from this discussion, reinforcing past observations, is that the terrorists won (if one subscribes to the view that terrorists hate our freedoms, etc. or that America stands for freedom).

Snowden proved it, but his actions, of course, are also provoking more of the same from the same forces.

The saddest part is that there is such underwhelming popular outrage or resistance to Snowden's revelations, which have little relevance to shopping, sexting and selfies. Who cares if the government is spying when the population is obsessed with oversharing their own secrets via social media? Big brother's surveillance may be regarded as a form of flattery, of attention desperately craved. It's just the NSA "friending" 300 million Americans.

The terrorists clearly won.

[AndyH]

The terrorists clearly won.

Al-Qaeda and Osama were born from the Mujahideen - the Afghan fighters fighting the former USSR. We helped them, then left them to be slaughtered, then helped them, then pulled away again. The amazingly sad part of all of this is that 'we' created Osama bin Laden's hate.

See 'Charlie Wilson's War' and Operation Cyclone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

[klapauzius]

The terrorists clearly won.

Al-Qaeda and Osama were born from the Mujahideen - the Afghan fighters fighting the former USSR. We helped them, then left them to be slaughtered, then helped them, then pulled away again. The amazingly sad part of all of this is that 'we' created Osama bin Laden's hate.

See 'Charlie Wilson's War' and Operation Cyclone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

I think you are confusing something here.

Al-Qaeda, bin laden and the like always hated both, the West and the Soviets. They took the West's help, because it was convenient (and needed) at the time, but the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. It was naive back then to not see this.

The saddest part is that there is such underwhelming popular outrage or resistance to Snowden's revelations, which have little relevance to shopping, sexting and selfies. Who cares if the government is spying when the population is obsessed with oversharing their own secrets via social media? Big brother's surveillance may be regarded as a form of flattery, of attention desperately craved. It's just the NSA "friending" 300 million Americans.

I think you nailed it!

I agree that this is indeed a regrettable development, this utilization of vast resources and cutting edge technology to create and promote idle chatter and senseless exchange of meaningless information (instead of moving our great civilization forward...).


But no, the terrorists (assuming we are talking about Al-Qaeda and their imitators) haven't won, since the establishment of an intrusive spying agency wasn't on their list of goals. I think ever since this started in the 7th century, the actual goal was, and still is, to bring the world under Islam's rule.

If anything, they made us more paranoid. But since they (the terrorists) are actually losing, I think it would be time to reduce the paranoia (and its agencies, i.e. the NSA) a bit.