71–80 of 141 posts
Why can’t there be an independent party with top secret clearance do a code inspection and see if the hypothetical theory holds water? It seems like there should be a way to testify about it without compromising secrets.
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
> It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information. I agree and think the way to improve this is to codify into the relevant laws that: 1. If the government claims "state secrets" they have a burden…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this comment being downvoted? What alternatives are there other than achieving meaningful representation in government e.g. Congress?
It's being downvoted because it's utterly fallacious. The democratic process has been captured by mass media and turned into a simulation of choosing change. Divisive bikesheds are played up to the max, while the fundamental substantive issues like this are off the discussion table. Any candidate that dares to break rank and bring them up gets labeled "fringe" and memory-holed by the maintream media. The ultimate alt…
"Google ad set up got them approved everything was ready to rock and roll I was the most googled candidate of the night as I have been for every debate that I've participated in the issue was during that first debate you know what while that peak period was happening our Google ad account was suspended by Google with no explanation whatsoever."
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
They have abused the power to such an extent I think it reasonable they be stripped of it. It is like taking away a person's rights to own a gun after they commit a violent crime with one. Regardless of what arguments can be made that they need one, their past abuse means the need is now completely ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…
If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.
I consider Edward Snowden the most patriotic American in my life time. The fact that you consider someone revealing the government not only lying under oath, but eroding our 4th Amendment rights to be a traitor is just mind boggling. Our nation was founded by rebels fighting for greater freedoms, after all. Edward Snowden is simply allowing the public to be more educated about the government in hopes they might enact change. He gave up his citizenship fighting for what he believed in, and it was the US government that villified him.
Whenever an organization is secretive, it is only for that organization to protect itself. I've never once encountered an exception to that rule (although I do believe some must exist).
I just don't understand why you assume the government is trustworthy, when there is extraordinary evidence of them deceiving the public time and time again. This same line of reasoning is what led to the 737-MAX disasters - whistle blowers were ignored and people literally died as a result. The only difference is you assign some sort of authority to the government that makes them infallible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…
If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.
I would say the facts openly disagree with your assertation that if the whistleblower protections aren't enough, then it means the government isn't doing anything wrong.
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
>It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets They have abused the power to such an extent I think it reasonable they be stripped of it. It is like taking away a person's rights to own a gun after they commit a violent crime with one. Regardless of what arguments can be made that they need one, their past abuse means the need is now completely ignored.
This is one of the oldest and hardest problem in managing a 'country', a vast group of people, in the face of potentially hostile foreign powers and nefarious actors in general (including, and sometimes especially, within).
I feel our epoch (with internet, mobile, 24/7 on, hyperbuzz, etc) is vastly increasing the complexity and difficulty of this topic. It's likely to make those in charge of secrets paranoid, with reason, even assuming the best of intents.
TL;DR: wish it were as simple as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?
I read it the same way, and I don't see how one would read it any other way? Removing the qualifiers - "If El-Masri's allegations are true [..], then all fair-minded people[..], must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
> It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information. I agree and think the way to improve this is to codify into the relevant laws that: 1. If the government claims "state secrets" they have a burden…
This is a terribly bad idea, if you consider the Curry-Howard-correspondance between proof and programm, and the constructive logic approach of proof by construction. That's a stretched metaphor, perhaps, but it's very real, considering that one often waits how things play out.
Just like wikipedia let's everyone edit, see how it turns out, and revert later--which can be messy or impossible if several legit edits were made meanwhile.
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
Congress could rule that the copying/filtering method is illegal and that Henning’s method of mirroring is the only acceptable practice. Then we don’t care so much about the specific means. I’m not a huge fan of ombudsman/czar positions but I think it would make sense to have some sort of privacy advocate within the executive and maybe even a house committee on the topic. It’s abundantly clear at this point that when…