Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
Or maybe Snowden will be proven right. We'll see. At least thanks to him we can now have this discussion.
"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests.
And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
By the way, I did not state this earlier, but although I agree with them doing it here, I find it complete bullshit that we do it to other countries. There is absolutely no reason we should be doing that to others.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
Or maybe Snowden will be proven right. We'll see. At least thanks to him we can now have this discussion.
"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests.
And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
Snowden just sounds like a typical paranoid American who believes the government has a secret agenda that will crush and indenture all Americans. (which so far in my life it seems like extremist conservatives act like this, but I will adjust my views accordingly when shown otherwise). I don't want a completely new Bill of Rights, just small adjustments.
Yes he did what was right, but at the same time he did something wrong, despite the program being good and bad at the same time. He is a great American, no doubt. But he is a coward for running, in my opinion. But I get why he is doing it. If he believes he is a hero then why run? If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.
He does have something else to unleash, and he's been 'unleashing' new information on a weekly basis. Did you read about the massive surveillance operation against Brazil? Or this mornings latest revelations regarding Microsoft and Skype complicity in spying on the Worlds citizens?
Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe
The Guardian, Thursday 11 July 2013
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.
The documents show that:
• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;
• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;
• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;
• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;
• In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism;
• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport"....
Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments
As a new poll shows widespread American approval for him, the NSA whistleblower vehemently denies media claims
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 July 2013
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in an interview on Saturday and then again Tuesday afternoon, vehemently denied media claims that he gave classified information to the governments of China or Russia. He also denied assertions that one or both governments had succeeded in "draining the contents of his laptops". "I never gave any information to either government, and they never took anything from my laptops," he said.
The extraordinary claim that China had drained the contents of Snowden's laptops first appeared in the New York Times in a June 24 article. The paper published the claim with no evidence and without any attribution to any identified sources.
In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong" (emphasis added).
So that's how this "China-drained-his-laptops" claim was created: by the New York Times citing two anonymous sources saying they "believed" this happened. From there, it predictably spread everywhere as truth.
Shortly thereafter, the New Yorker – under the headline "Why China Let Snowden Go" - told its readers: "His usefulness was almost exhausted. Intelligence experts cited by the Times believed that the Chinese government 'had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.'" It was then repeatedly cited to demonize Snowden in venues such as DC gossip sheets, right-wing outlets, and diaries at Democratic Party sites.
But there was never any evidence that this was true. The NYT decided to publish this incendiary claim in a news article based purely on rank speculation from two anonymous sources. Obviously, Snowden's denial is not dispositive and shouldn't be treated as such. But it is the only actual evidence on this question thus far.
Americans, to a remarkable extent, seem able and willing to disregard these demonization campaigns. A new Quinnipiac poll released today show that Americans, by a large margin, have positive views of Snowden's actions despite all the demonization: "Fifty-five percent (55%) said Snowden was a whistle-blower in leaking details about top-secret US programs that collect telephone and Internet data . . . . thirty-four percent said he's a traitor." And: "the view of Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than traitor predominated among almost every group of respondents broken down by party, gender, income, education and age."
Moreover, "the poll also showed that by 45 percent to 40 percent, respondents said the government goes too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terrorism. That was a reversal from January 2010, when in a similar survey 63 percent said anti-terrorism activities didn't go far enough to protect the US from attacks, compared with 25 percent who disagreed."
The polling firm's analyst, Peter Brown, provided some fascinating insight about these findings:
"The massive swing in public opinion about civil liberties and governmental anti-terrorism efforts, and the public view that Edward Snowden is more whistle-blower than traitor, are the public reaction and apparent shock at the extent to which the government has gone in trying to prevent future terrorist incidents . . . .The verdict that Snowden is not a traitor goes against almost the unified view of the nation's political establishment "
As usual, the US government, its establishment press, and both political parties have been almost completely united in its views and objectives in this episode. The American people, however, seem to have reached a much different conclusion than the one prepared for and fed to them.
Latin America fallout
As some US journalists assert that no new NSA stories have been published for some time, the controversy over the US spying apparatus in the actual world continues to intensify. Following the anger in Europe, revelations of NSA spying on millions of Brazilians have dominated the news cycle and political class of that country for days now, with formal criminal and Congressional investigations already under way.
Meanwhile, along with O Globo journalists Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado, I published another article in that newspaper on Monday detailing that the NSA's bulk collection of millions of emails and telephone calls extends to most of Latin America. The reaction throughout that continent is the same as we've seen in Europe and Brazil specifically: see this Reuters article entitled "Latin American nations fuming over NSA spying allegations" for the details - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obo-spying
I realize that some US journalists see the world as beginning and ending with American borders, but – as these events demonstrate – we have actually been continuing to publish extremely significant NSA stories that are prompting all sorts of debate, investigation and reform around the world.
It's not been forgotten by most people in the World - see 'Latin America fallout' above, although I can understand why the U.S government lackeys within mainstream U.S media would attempt to brush this topic under the carpet.
If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.
He does have something else to unleash, and he's been 'unleashing' new information on a weekly basis. Did you read about the massive surveillance operation against Brazil? Or this mornings latest revelations regarding Microsoft and Skype complicity in spying on the Worlds citizens?
Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe
The Guardian, Thursday 11 July 2013
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.
The documents show that:
• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;
• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;
• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;
• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;
• In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism;
• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport"....
He is just basically adding on to what he previously exposed. I should have said anything "new" as in non-NSA related.
And like I said earlier, us watching other countries is bullshit. Its gov't paranoia. That I think we can both agree on.
But here is something I want to ask you because I am curious.
(Speaking about just America at the moment) Yes they are spying on us. They know many things we have talked about. Yes its a violation of privacy in a way. But what are they collecting? Love/hate messages to friends, family, etc. on facebook, twitter, etc? Recipes exchanged on pinterest? Jokes on websites? Discussions on forums such as this? Video calls to loved ones on skype?
Basically what I am saying is that they have a bunch of useless info in hopes that one day they catch someone about to commit a crime, which supposedly has happened.
Once again I will point out I am not defending the government, actually I am making fun of them in this case. They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.
Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).
And I know that negative things about the program include false-alarm questioning of citizens who may not be involved in a crime. But if they have all the info then they should know if someone is involved or not, and if someone fucks up then it's their fault and will be dealt with most likely (hopefully).
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments
Just because he says it doesn't mean its true. You act like Snowden is a perfect little angel. :roll:
I'm not accusing him (anymore) of giving info to Russia or China, but it could happen.
Ever hear the phrase "Even if I did I wouldn't tell ya!"? Just sayin...
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
It's not been forgotten by most people in the World - see 'Latin America fallout' above, although I can understand why the U.S government lackeys within mainstream U.S media would attempt to brush this topic under the carpet.
Trust me...i have been following what the "media" does not want our populace to know.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.
Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).
They don't need to spy on 300 million Americans in order to catch a terrorist, or a group of terrorists. Before 9/11 they had evidence that Al Queda-affiliated terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft in an imminent terrorist attack, yet they did nothing about it. And apparently they also had been warned by Russian intelligence that one of the Boston bombers posed a security threat, yet they did nothing about it.
The way I see it, they need to spend less time and money on spying on every single American, and millions of citizens of other countries, and focus more on acting on the information that they already have - information gained from actual anti-terrorism units whose job it is to identify actual threats.
I actually think these mass-surveillance operations exposed by Snowden having nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism.
i saw a poll on the news tonight that said the majority of americans asked actually support snowden. i have to try to find a link to it.
You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.
:oops:
i wasn't sure if that was the same poll, but now that i re-read it i think it is the same one. i was looking for an american news source as well to back the guardian piece.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.
Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).
The way I see it, they need to spend less time and money on spying on every single American, and millions of citizens of other countries, and focus more on acting on the information that they already have - information gained from actual anti-terrorism units whose job it is to identify actual threats.
I actually think these mass-surveillance operations exposed by Snowden having nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism.
Do you know what they actually need to spend more money on? Infrastructure. I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.
I personally think the US shouldn't worry about others causing trouble in other countries. If they are not a threat to us, then who cares. But if its a domestic thing, then yeah take care of it.
And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.
Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.
I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.
I've been to the U.S many times. And yeah, I can think of far more useful things for the government - and the British government too - to spend their money on than snooping on everyone, and waging wars overseas.
Finding some alternative energy sources wouldn't be a bad start. There's way too many polluting cars on the roads.
i saw a poll on the news tonight that said the majority of americans asked actually support snowden. i have to try to find a link to it.
You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.
:oops:
i wasn't sure if that was the same poll, but now that i re-read it i think it is the same one. i was looking for an american news source as well to back the guardian piece.
And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.
Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.
You're a Funny F
You are probably at the top of the people most monitored list
Stop posting immediately.
Get off the internet.
Throw away your cell phone
I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.
I've been to the U.S many times. And yeah, I can think of far more useful things for the government - and the British government too - to spend their money on than snooping on everyone, and waging wars overseas.
Finding some alternative energy sources wouldn't be a bad start. There's way too many polluting cars on the roads.
Agree fully.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Edward Snowden: US officials are preventing me claiming asylum
NSA whistleblower calls meeting with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch at Sheremetyevo airport
Peter Walker and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013
The NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden has said US officials are waging a campaign to prevent him from taking up asylum offers as he called a meeting in Moscow airport with human rights groups.
In a letter sent to groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the former intelligence agency contractor claimed there was "an unlawful campaign by officials in the US government to deny my right to seek and enjoy … asylum under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and invited them to meet him at 5pm local time.
"The scale of threatening behaviour is without precedent: never before in history have states conspired to force to the ground a sovereign president's plane to effect a search for a political refugee," he wrote to the groups.
"This dangerous escalation represents a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America or my own personal security, but to the basic right shared by every living person to live free from persecution."
Reuters quoted an airport official as saying Snowden would meet the groups on Friday afternoon in the transit area of Sheremetyevo, where he has remained since flying to Russia from Hong Kong on 23 June...
what i find interesting in reading posts on this thread is ...
i wonder how many people would feel the way they feel if this was under Bush or Romney!?? ... on another thread - someone can cry foul of the loss of civil liberties which is an essential part of the constitution and then on another say it really isn't that big of a deal ...
is it any wonder why the US gov't is simply a puppet for corporations and actually gets away with it? ... is there a gov't anywhere in the world that is more influenced by corporations than the US? ... i don't think so ...
Yes, it might violate the Constitution, but as years go on, and technology keeps getting better, and enemies get smarter, the Constitution may hold us back from using measures to protect us.
To be clear, I respect your view and know you are a caring American as well. Glad you are an aware citizen.
See, that right there DOES make you less Patriotic according to the historical non-GOP warped definition of the term. You are okay with Constitutional violations by those who took oaths to uphold that very document. This is not okay and does not make you a Patriot. I don't care how many people try to twist my words here, it is pretty much fact that our forefathers' actual display of patriotism would not match up even remotely to what you just professed here.
I'm fine with people coming to there own conclusions that differ from me, but don't call it something it isn't then.
Yes he did what was right, but at the same time he did something wrong, despite the program being good and bad at the same time. He is a great American, no doubt. But he is a coward for running, in my opinion. But I get why he is doing it. If he believes he is a hero then why run? If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.
It would behoove you to read up on all the past whistleblowers and how aggressively they have been prosecuted by the current administration. Snowden did the smart thing. He blew the whistle and has so far protected himself from having to go through a similar crimes against humanity scenario as Manning. I would hold no person at fault for doing so.
Snowden just sounds like a typical paranoid American who believes the government has a secret agenda that will crush and indenture all Americans. (which so far in my life it seems like extremist conservatives act like this, but I will adjust my views accordingly when shown otherwise). I don't want a completely new Bill of Rights, just small adjustments.
I had to go back and address this part of your statement too. Snowden is not the typical paranoid American. I'm not sure if you watched the interviews with him or not, but in them he clearly states the type of information and undermining that was going on. These activities were directed at the American public. That is not paranoia when signs of tyranny are already actually occurring.
So...people who disagree with you are also brainwashed and deluded? I see.
No, that's not what I said. And it's not what Sludgefactory said either.
No, I don't believe Sludgefactory ever did say anything like that. Nor did I say he/she did. You on the other hand...your words speak for themselves.
I went back and re-read this a couple times and still don't come to the conclusion that you are. The conclusion I come to is that Byrnzie is basically just stating that those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded. I would add to that that they may also be involved in the deceptions.
I don't see the connection to Byrnzie saying people are deluded and brainwashed if they disagree with him. I can see if someone does believe the U.S. government/corporations represent America taking issue with this and feeling like they were just called deluded and brainwashed, though. That's on them though if they believe those kinds of things when, at every step of the way, the U.S. government/corporations only have their own interests at heart under the guise of 'morally protecting us'.
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
I went back and re-read this a couple times and still don't come to the conclusion that you are. The conclusion I come to is that Byrnzie is basically just stating that those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded. I would add to that that they may also be involved in the deceptions.
I don't see the connection to Byrnzie saying people are deluded and brainwashed if they disagree with him. I can see if someone does believe the U.S. government/corporations represent America taking issue with this and feeling like they were just called deluded and brainwashed, though. That's on them though if they believe those kinds of things when, at every step of the way, the U.S. government/corporations only have their own interests at heart under the guise of 'morally protecting us'.
Neither of us is under any obligation to come to the same conclusions as the other. It is quite alright that we disagree. Healthy, even, for the sake of discussion and debate. I do, however, stand by my conclusion. The full exchange in questions reads:
God damn, Byrnzie! You are tireless in your posting on this topic. I appreciate it and applaud you for that. It makes me sad that here we have someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen displaying more U.S. patriotism than many others in this thread who are U.S. citizens. I mostly just see nationalist apologists misdirecting the real issue at hand.
Because U.S. citizens exercising their right to free speech by posting opinions you do not agree with somehow makes them less patriotic than others? :?
No, U.S citizens jumping to the defense of the government/corporations because they're deluded, and have been brainwashed into believing that that same government, and those same corporations, represent 'America'.
I'm unclear who these deluded and brainwashed Americans are other than those who disagree with Byrnzie's take on this issue. Who do you mean when you say "those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded"? Who are we talking about? And who has decided that they do not have this capacity or wherewithal? What is the standard used to determine this? I have a hard time believing the standard here is not those who disagree with yours and Byrnzie's opinions/conclusions on this topic.
I personally believe speaking one's mind can show quite a bit of Patriotism. Again, that there is a disagreement is a good thing. We can disagree and not label those we disagree with delusional and brainwashed.
Worth pointing out here that Webster's definition of Patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country". Not love or devotion to one's government and not love or devotion to the constitution of any government. People can show that devotion in a variety of ways. Wanting to see their country be kept safe and secure is one. Wanting the government to be held to both the letter and spirit of all laws is another. That one person feels more strongly about one and another feels more strongly about the other makes neither more or less Patriotic.
Comments
Or maybe Snowden will be proven right. We'll see. At least thanks to him we can now have this discussion.
"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests.
And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Snowden just sounds like a typical paranoid American who believes the government has a secret agenda that will crush and indenture all Americans. (which so far in my life it seems like extremist conservatives act like this, but I will adjust my views accordingly when shown otherwise). I don't want a completely new Bill of Rights, just small adjustments.
Yes he did what was right, but at the same time he did something wrong, despite the program being good and bad at the same time. He is a great American, no doubt. But he is a coward for running, in my opinion. But I get why he is doing it. If he believes he is a hero then why run? If he has nothing else to unleash than he isn't fighting for another day to do something else.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
He does have something else to unleash, and he's been 'unleashing' new information on a weekly basis. Did you read about the massive surveillance operation against Brazil? Or this mornings latest revelations regarding Microsoft and Skype complicity in spying on the Worlds citizens?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... -user-data
Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
• Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism
• Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch
• Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls
• Company says it is legally compelled to comply
Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe
The Guardian, Thursday 11 July 2013
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
The files provided by Edward Snowden illustrate the scale of co-operation between Silicon Valley and the intelligence agencies over the last three years. They also shed new light on the workings of the top-secret Prism program, which was disclosed by the Guardian and the Washington Post last month.
The documents show that:
• Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;
• The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on Outlook.com, including Hotmail;
• The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide;
• Microsoft also worked with the FBI's Data Intercept Unit to "understand" potential issues with a feature in Outlook.com that allows users to create email aliases;
• In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism;
• Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a "team sport"....
Seems to be forgotten now.
Is that the plan?
Attemtpt to get snowden to make a tactical error.
Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments
As a new poll shows widespread American approval for him, the NSA whistleblower vehemently denies media claims
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 July 2013
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in an interview on Saturday and then again Tuesday afternoon, vehemently denied media claims that he gave classified information to the governments of China or Russia. He also denied assertions that one or both governments had succeeded in "draining the contents of his laptops". "I never gave any information to either government, and they never took anything from my laptops," he said.
The extraordinary claim that China had drained the contents of Snowden's laptops first appeared in the New York Times in a June 24 article. The paper published the claim with no evidence and without any attribution to any identified sources.
In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong" (emphasis added).
So that's how this "China-drained-his-laptops" claim was created: by the New York Times citing two anonymous sources saying they "believed" this happened. From there, it predictably spread everywhere as truth.
Shortly thereafter, the New Yorker – under the headline "Why China Let Snowden Go" - told its readers: "His usefulness was almost exhausted. Intelligence experts cited by the Times believed that the Chinese government 'had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.'" It was then repeatedly cited to demonize Snowden in venues such as DC gossip sheets, right-wing outlets, and diaries at Democratic Party sites.
But there was never any evidence that this was true. The NYT decided to publish this incendiary claim in a news article based purely on rank speculation from two anonymous sources. Obviously, Snowden's denial is not dispositive and shouldn't be treated as such. But it is the only actual evidence on this question thus far.
Americans, to a remarkable extent, seem able and willing to disregard these demonization campaigns. A new Quinnipiac poll released today show that Americans, by a large margin, have positive views of Snowden's actions despite all the demonization: "Fifty-five percent (55%) said Snowden was a whistle-blower in leaking details about top-secret US programs that collect telephone and Internet data . . . . thirty-four percent said he's a traitor." And: "the view of Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than traitor predominated among almost every group of respondents broken down by party, gender, income, education and age."
Moreover, "the poll also showed that by 45 percent to 40 percent, respondents said the government goes too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terrorism. That was a reversal from January 2010, when in a similar survey 63 percent said anti-terrorism activities didn't go far enough to protect the US from attacks, compared with 25 percent who disagreed."
The polling firm's analyst, Peter Brown, provided some fascinating insight about these findings:
"The massive swing in public opinion about civil liberties and governmental anti-terrorism efforts, and the public view that Edward Snowden is more whistle-blower than traitor, are the public reaction and apparent shock at the extent to which the government has gone in trying to prevent future terrorist incidents . . . .The verdict that Snowden is not a traitor goes against almost the unified view of the nation's political establishment "
As usual, the US government, its establishment press, and both political parties have been almost completely united in its views and objectives in this episode. The American people, however, seem to have reached a much different conclusion than the one prepared for and fed to them.
Latin America fallout
As some US journalists assert that no new NSA stories have been published for some time, the controversy over the US spying apparatus in the actual world continues to intensify. Following the anger in Europe, revelations of NSA spying on millions of Brazilians have dominated the news cycle and political class of that country for days now, with formal criminal and Congressional investigations already under way.
Meanwhile, along with O Globo journalists Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado, I published another article in that newspaper on Monday detailing that the NSA's bulk collection of millions of emails and telephone calls extends to most of Latin America. The reaction throughout that continent is the same as we've seen in Europe and Brazil specifically: see this Reuters article entitled "Latin American nations fuming over NSA spying allegations" for the details - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obo-spying
I realize that some US journalists see the world as beginning and ending with American borders, but – as these events demonstrate – we have actually been continuing to publish extremely significant NSA stories that are prompting all sorts of debate, investigation and reform around the world.
It's not been forgotten by most people in the World - see 'Latin America fallout' above, although I can understand why the U.S government lackeys within mainstream U.S media would attempt to brush this topic under the carpet.
He is just basically adding on to what he previously exposed. I should have said anything "new" as in non-NSA related.
And like I said earlier, us watching other countries is bullshit. Its gov't paranoia. That I think we can both agree on.
But here is something I want to ask you because I am curious.
(Speaking about just America at the moment) Yes they are spying on us. They know many things we have talked about. Yes its a violation of privacy in a way. But what are they collecting? Love/hate messages to friends, family, etc. on facebook, twitter, etc? Recipes exchanged on pinterest? Jokes on websites? Discussions on forums such as this? Video calls to loved ones on skype?
Basically what I am saying is that they have a bunch of useless info in hopes that one day they catch someone about to commit a crime, which supposedly has happened.
Once again I will point out I am not defending the government, actually I am making fun of them in this case. They have lots of info that most of the time means nothing and people wasted time listening, watching, reading info. Then one may ask "then why do it?" They probably don't have to. If they did indeed stop attacks, and we suddenly drop the program, and then suddenly an attack happens, all I want to say is that no one should complain then. And if it is dropped and nothing happens, then oh well. Good for us.
Is it possible you can at least agree with me on that point? (fingers-crossed).
And I know that negative things about the program include false-alarm questioning of citizens who may not be involved in a crime. But if they have all the info then they should know if someone is involved or not, and if someone fucks up then it's their fault and will be dealt with most likely (hopefully).
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Just because he says it doesn't mean its true. You act like Snowden is a perfect little angel. :roll:
I'm not accusing him (anymore) of giving info to Russia or China, but it could happen.
Ever hear the phrase "Even if I did I wouldn't tell ya!"? Just sayin...
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Trust me...i have been following what the "media" does not want our populace to know.
They don't need to spy on 300 million Americans in order to catch a terrorist, or a group of terrorists. Before 9/11 they had evidence that Al Queda-affiliated terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft in an imminent terrorist attack, yet they did nothing about it. And apparently they also had been warned by Russian intelligence that one of the Boston bombers posed a security threat, yet they did nothing about it.
The way I see it, they need to spend less time and money on spying on every single American, and millions of citizens of other countries, and focus more on acting on the information that they already have - information gained from actual anti-terrorism units whose job it is to identify actual threats.
I actually think these mass-surveillance operations exposed by Snowden having nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism.
You don't need to look too far. Check the article I posted above on this very page.
It's the only evidence we have. And I'll take his word over an anonymous government source any day.
i wasn't sure if that was the same poll, but now that i re-read it i think it is the same one. i was looking for an american news source as well to back the guardian piece.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Do you know what they actually need to spend more money on? Infrastructure. I don't know if you ever been here, but there are soooooo many shitty bridges and building that need either fixed or demolished. Also, education needs to be dealt with.
I personally think the US shouldn't worry about others causing trouble in other countries. If they are not a threat to us, then who cares. But if its a domestic thing, then yeah take care of it.
And even if it "has nothing at all to do with any attempt to avert terrorism" then the info they have is useless still. They can't do anything with it.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Maybe. Or maybe they can use personal details to smear, or intimidate people they deem to be a threat - dissenters, e.t.c. Or they can at least threaten to intimidate people. It wouldn't be difficult. Even just some innocent flirting on Facebook, or by e- mail, could be used to intimidate someone into silence. The amount of control such access to personal information affords them is greater than you think, and it's not beyond these power-obsessed control freaks to use it.
I've been to the U.S many times. And yeah, I can think of far more useful things for the government - and the British government too - to spend their money on than snooping on everyone, and waging wars overseas.
Finding some alternative energy sources wouldn't be a bad start. There's way too many polluting cars on the roads.
I forgive you
You're a Funny F
You are probably at the top of the people most monitored list
Stop posting immediately.
Get off the internet.
Throw away your cell phone
Agree fully.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Edward Snowden: US officials are preventing me claiming asylum
NSA whistleblower calls meeting with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch at Sheremetyevo airport
Peter Walker and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013
The NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden has said US officials are waging a campaign to prevent him from taking up asylum offers as he called a meeting in Moscow airport with human rights groups.
In a letter sent to groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the former intelligence agency contractor claimed there was "an unlawful campaign by officials in the US government to deny my right to seek and enjoy … asylum under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and invited them to meet him at 5pm local time.
"The scale of threatening behaviour is without precedent: never before in history have states conspired to force to the ground a sovereign president's plane to effect a search for a political refugee," he wrote to the groups.
"This dangerous escalation represents a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America or my own personal security, but to the basic right shared by every living person to live free from persecution."
Reuters quoted an airport official as saying Snowden would meet the groups on Friday afternoon in the transit area of Sheremetyevo, where he has remained since flying to Russia from Hong Kong on 23 June...
i wonder how many people would feel the way they feel if this was under Bush or Romney!?? ... on another thread - someone can cry foul of the loss of civil liberties which is an essential part of the constitution and then on another say it really isn't that big of a deal ...
is it any wonder why the US gov't is simply a puppet for corporations and actually gets away with it? ... is there a gov't anywhere in the world that is more influenced by corporations than the US? ... i don't think so ...
See, that right there DOES make you less Patriotic according to the historical non-GOP warped definition of the term. You are okay with Constitutional violations by those who took oaths to uphold that very document. This is not okay and does not make you a Patriot. I don't care how many people try to twist my words here, it is pretty much fact that our forefathers' actual display of patriotism would not match up even remotely to what you just professed here.
I'm fine with people coming to there own conclusions that differ from me, but don't call it something it isn't then.
I do appreciate your friendly gesture there.
It would behoove you to read up on all the past whistleblowers and how aggressively they have been prosecuted by the current administration. Snowden did the smart thing. He blew the whistle and has so far protected himself from having to go through a similar crimes against humanity scenario as Manning. I would hold no person at fault for doing so.
I had to go back and address this part of your statement too. Snowden is not the typical paranoid American. I'm not sure if you watched the interviews with him or not, but in them he clearly states the type of information and undermining that was going on. These activities were directed at the American public. That is not paranoia when signs of tyranny are already actually occurring.
I went back and re-read this a couple times and still don't come to the conclusion that you are. The conclusion I come to is that Byrnzie is basically just stating that those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded. I would add to that that they may also be involved in the deceptions.
I don't see the connection to Byrnzie saying people are deluded and brainwashed if they disagree with him. I can see if someone does believe the U.S. government/corporations represent America taking issue with this and feeling like they were just called deluded and brainwashed, though. That's on them though if they believe those kinds of things when, at every step of the way, the U.S. government/corporations only have their own interests at heart under the guise of 'morally protecting us'.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Neither of us is under any obligation to come to the same conclusions as the other. It is quite alright that we disagree. Healthy, even, for the sake of discussion and debate. I do, however, stand by my conclusion. The full exchange in questions reads:
I'm unclear who these deluded and brainwashed Americans are other than those who disagree with Byrnzie's take on this issue. Who do you mean when you say "those who do not have the capacity or wherewithal to question their government, to question authority are brainwashed and deluded"? Who are we talking about? And who has decided that they do not have this capacity or wherewithal? What is the standard used to determine this? I have a hard time believing the standard here is not those who disagree with yours and Byrnzie's opinions/conclusions on this topic.
I personally believe speaking one's mind can show quite a bit of Patriotism. Again, that there is a disagreement is a good thing. We can disagree and not label those we disagree with delusional and brainwashed.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."