111–120 of 141 posts
I have been thinking about these types of cases lately. It seems like any proof can be dismissed by three letter agencies with them using their "state secret" card as evidence to the contrary. i.e We have evidence to the contrary but you cannot see it. Darn, guess the case can't proceed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.
Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…
I will disagree. Releasing all the information to the public is the only proper channel.
> information he stole about government programs
Copying information is in no way similar to stealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
The result of Citizens United was the death blow on American democracy. First, companies can put as much money as they want on elections, second, rich people control companies, and third, foreign countries also control companies. Put this together and the USA has no functioning democracy anymore, it is at the whims of billionaires and/or foreign powers.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The result of Citizens United was the death blow on American democracy. First, companies can put as much money as they want on elections, second, rich people control companies, and third, foreign countries also control companies. Put this together and the USA has no functioning democracy anymore, it is at the whims of billionaires and/or foreign powers.
If money is so powerful, why is Michael Bloomberg not going to get the democratic nomination?
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…
Or do they? I mean, it's not that there can not be advantages to doing so, but then the same can be said about torture, about killing "dangerous" people without a trial, about censorship, ..., or in short: There can be advantages to any of the things that authoritarians like (as long as they themselves aren't the target, obviously).
But still, we have recognized that we are better off as a society if we make all those things illegal, because the good that comes from them is outweighed by far by the bad. Maybe we should come to that same conclusion about "state secrets"? Maybe we should realize that they are inherently incompatible with democracy, and that having them damages democracy so much that we would be better off accepting the risks of not having "state secrets"? Or, to at least reconsider how far they can go/how they can be used? Like, I dunno, maybe you can have state secrets, but not for longer than three years, and you can not convict someone based on secrets? I don't claim to know what the right balance would be, just throwing out random ideas, but my point is that it seems to me that the damage done by the concept of state secrets warrants reconsidering whether they are actually worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…
> He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access, copied information, fled the United States, and illegally released the information he stole about government programs that were in no way illegal or unconstitutional. Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access. Also if you know anything about his case or related cases, you’d also know the proper channels don’t lead anywhere. There’s a great frontline do…
I have not heard any statement from Snowden claiming that the government was making false statements about this matter.
The government did publish an email [1] that Snowden sent to a training coordinator, disputing the ability of executive orders to supersede law. It is possible that the government did this as a distraction and it is not actually what Snowden is referring to. Nevertheless, Snowden never gets specific about his whistleblowing attempt, despite going into great details about other aspects of his story.
1. https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/87218708448/edward-j-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limit is that you have actual secrets to protect, whether codes or names. You don't want these public because everyone could destroy you then. Secrets are a necessary evil. Managing secrecy as a function of some more or less independent entity — three-letter agency, direct governmental body, army... — is a balancing act, to put it mildly. Ever since the dawn of time, and periodically throughout history, you hear…
It's not clear that secrets are a necessary evil. They are, however, greatly desired by exactly the kind of people who definitely shouldn't be allowed them. So that's a bad sign. Inappropriate reliance upon secrets is a recurrent security design mistake. Remember passwords? Well not so much remember, we still have passwords, and they're still terrible. Compare a FIDO Security Key. No secrets, much better. If I'm wron…
I'd be interested to hear how you think law enforcement and intelligence could still work without confidentiality.
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…
You know what I find the most frustrating? The totally illegitimate laws that allow these state secrets to exist are 100% public. Most of Snowden's revelations could be infer in the text of laws stating what the NSA can do. I think there is the mentality that progress depends on ~~superheroes~~ whistle-blowers whereas I think that a sane and functioning network of privacy defense non-profits and appropriate public ed…
Now there’s an oxymoron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what I find the most frustrating? The totally illegitimate laws that allow these state secrets to exist are 100% public. Most of Snowden's revelations could be infer in the text of laws stating what the NSA can do. I think there is the mentality that progress depends on ~~superheroes~~ whistle-blowers whereas I think that a sane and functioning network of privacy defense non-profits and appropriate public ed…
> illegitimate laws Now there’s an oxymoron.
Let me sing you the song of my people. Once upon a time, a french government surrendered to the German invader and changed form to stop being a republic. A colonel (de Gaulle) decided to stop obeying their orders, claiming he was a servant of the French republic, and claiming it was now alive in a government in exile in London and never surrendered.
The legal mainland non-republican government declared him a traitor and his supporters terrorists. They were serious about that and killed many of them.
At the end of the war, de Gaulle won and declared the mainland government "nul et non avenu" (void and never happened) which cancelled all the legal acts it took. People who during all that time followed the rule of the law were considered traitors to the nation, especially if they (as the law mandated it) denounced Jews or people helping them to German authorities.
This is what we are taught in history class: following the law is not enough. You also have to think further than that. In some cases, the right thing to do is illegal.