Edward Snowden & The N.S.A Revelations

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

But hey, gotta save us from those scary terrorists, right?

no, let's just let ourselves get hit again.

its been a couple of weeks without a presidential scandal and we need something else to blame on him.


tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

Pretty sad an American has to seek refuge in Russia for being a whistleblower.

Worst political era in US history.

Off the top of my head:

The Civil War
Reconstruction
The 1980s
The 1990s

vant0037

vant0037 wrote:

unsung wrote:

Pretty sad an American has to seek refuge in Russia for being a whistleblower.

Worst political era in US history.

Off the top of my head:

The Civil War
Reconstruction
The 1980s
The 1990s

Oh yeah, the 1950s

London Bridge

unsung wrote:

Worst political era in US history.

Wow! You went to a school that doesn't teach history. How did you get away with that? :P

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

I thought Andrew Sullivan described my conflicting views on Snowden well:

"...But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong, then ran away to seek refuge in authoritarian regimes with open hostility to the US."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/ ... e-day-230/

Except that's not the reason he took his job.

vant0037

How do we know anything about this guys motives?

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I thought Andrew Sullivan described my conflicting views on Snowden well:

"...But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong, then ran away to seek refuge in authoritarian regimes with open hostility to the US."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/ ... e-day-230/

Except that's not the reason he took his job.

And you know this how?

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong

And you know this how?

Byrnzie

Greenwald: "One of the things people are going to be most interested in, in trying to understand what, who you are and what you are thinking is there came some point in time when you crossed this line of thinking about being a whistleblower to making the choice to actually become a whistleblower. Walk people through that decision making process."

Snowden: "When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for the sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale then the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person's career you'd only see one or two of these instances. When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them."

"But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you're ignored. The more you're told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government."

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong

And you know this how?

While I agree Sullivan's sentiment those words are his, not mine. I have asked you before not to attribute words to me that are not my own.

If the Greenwald piece you followed up with was in response to my question, I can only surmise that you are saying "Because Snowden said so." That is fine, but I am not willing to assume every one of his statements is automatically true.

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

And you know this how?

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency's secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/arti ... rveillance

Guitar92player

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong

And you know this how?

If the Greenwald piece you followed up with was in response to my question, I can only surmise that you are saying "Because Snowden said so." That is fine, but I am not willing to assume every one of his statements is automatically true.

Exactly.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

And you know this how?

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency's secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/arti ... rveillance

"..about three months ago". How long had he already been working in the industry before he decided he needed to reveal the mass surveillance program to the public?

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong

And you know this how?

While I agree Sullivan's sentiment those words are his, not mine. I have asked you before not to attribute words to me that are not my own.

So was Sullivan describing your conflicting views, or wasn't he?

JimmyV wrote:

I thought Andrew Sullivan described my conflicting views on Snowden well:

"...But I am more conflicted by a man who took his job in order to expose what he already believed was wrong, then ran away to seek refuge in authoritarian regimes with open hostility to the US."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/ ... e-day-230/

London Bridge

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

And you know this how?

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency's secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/arti ... rveillance

"..about three months ago". How long had he already been working in the industry before he decided he needed to reveal the mass surveillance program to the public?

I don't see how the number of years spent in the industry is relavant, but it seems that your so called hero knew about the "mass surveillance program" and or hacking activities for several years. In order for him to spill the beans, he acquired his latest job to obtain the proof, thus starting his life of crime.

Byrnzie

London Bridge wrote:

I don't see how the number of years spent in the industry is relavant, but it seems that your so called hero knew about the "mass surveillance program" and or hacking activities for several years. In order for him to spill the beans, he acquired his latest job to obtain the proof, thus starting his life of crime.

I don't see how the number of years he spent in the industry is relevant either. But you said before that he'd worked in the industry for a long time before deciding to expose the lies and the crimes of his superiors. So what? What's your point? Or do you even have a point?

lcusick

I am reading all of these posts and everyone has valid points about Snowden and the situation. I personally am not surprised about anything that the government does or any government in any other country. All the governments spy on each other, this has been going on for a very long time. Same with terrorism. Technology does add a whole different dimension to these problems, but the foundations are the same. Many things are happening in the US that we are not privy too. We think that we are free and we have freedoms in our country, but unfortunately these freedoms are being taken away from us. Some Americans are more concerned with Kanye West and Kim Kardashian and what they named their baby. For the longest time, I didn't know who the f*** Kim Kardashian was. A friend had to tell me. I do not watch TV too much, but I am amazed that people even care about this BS. People from every country needs to read information from all sources because we know how the media slants things, full of propaganda. People need to make their own intelligent decisons and not be so uninformed. This forum is named after one of Howard Zinn's booka, You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train, I suggest people read his books. There is a man who knows history. I teach history and the US history books are so slanted that it sickens me, therefore, I have read several of Howard Zinn's books. I cannot say that Snowden went about this "whistle-blowing" and his decisons afterwards the right way, but people do have the right to know what their government is doing, instead of sitting on the couch watching, Kim Kardashian, the bachelor, etc. It is all garbage. Sometimes I feel TV, facebook, twitter, video games etc. are dumbing many people down and therefore, the government can get away with many things because we are too apathetic and care more about movie stars, professional athletes, and yes even rock stars. I am sorry but our government and country has done many great things, and have helped many countries in times of need, but we (the United States) have done some pretty bad things to other countries too. People from other countries that do not like us have their reasons. I am not in a position to judge because I do know that politicians lie, and so does our government. We could try our best to fight terrorism, but it is here to stay. We need to look at the reasons these other countries hate us so badly. I personally think we were better off as a country when we were in the period of isolationism. Just my opinion.

London Bridge

Byrnzie wrote:

London Bridge wrote:

I don't see how the number of years spent in the industry is relavant, but it seems that your so called hero knew about the "mass surveillance program" and or hacking activities for several years. In order for him to spill the beans, he acquired his latest job to obtain the proof, thus starting his life of crime.

I don't see how the number of years he spent in the industry is relevant either. But you said before that he'd worked in the industry for a long time before deciding to expose the lies and the crimes of his superiors. So what? What's your point? Or do you even have a point?

I never mentioned time spent in the industry. I was answering your question directed to OP.
The point is, he knew the surveillance was going on a number of years ago and didn't go public until now.

Jason P

In 2009, Ed Snowden said the wikileaks source "should be shot in the balls".

Snowden may have leaned libertarian on some issues, but he also exhibited strong support for America's security state apparatus. He didn't just work for it as a quiet dissident. Four years before he would leak the country's secrets, Snowden was cheering its actions and insisting that it needed healthy funding. To anyone who questioned US actions in his favored online hangout, he could be derisive.

Livid about the across-the-board defense cuts that were planned under Obama, Snowden acidly joked that "[m]aybe we could just outsource our defense needs to india."

Worse yet, during a remarkable January 2009 chat, Snowden wrote that Obama had "appointed a fucking politician to run the CIA." In that same conversation, he vented his rage over reading a New York Times article about US actions in Iran, which was based on confidential leaks.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/

Well, he is probably in the best country that can arrange such an action.

dignin

Jason P wrote:

In 2009, Ed Snowden said the wikileaks source "should be shot in the balls".

Snowden may have leaned libertarian on some issues, but he also exhibited strong support for America's security state apparatus. He didn't just work for it as a quiet dissident. Four years before he would leak the country's secrets, Snowden was cheering its actions and insisting that it needed healthy funding. To anyone who questioned US actions in his favored online hangout, he could be derisive.

Livid about the across-the-board defense cuts that were planned under Obama, Snowden acidly joked that "[m]aybe we could just outsource our defense needs to india."

Worse yet, during a remarkable January 2009 chat, Snowden wrote that Obama had "appointed a fucking politician to run the CIA." In that same conversation, he vented his rage over reading a New York Times article about US actions in Iran, which was based on confidential leaks.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/

Well, he is probably in the best country that can arrange such an action.

Surprise, he changed his mind. I do that all the time.

The smear job continues, directing our attention away from the real issue.