41–50 of 172 posts
Snowden: "Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and the rest of our internet titans must ask themselves why they aren't fighting for our interests the same way". Indeed, they must. Your move Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple.
"Can we call it a police state now?" I saw the question on Reddit after a different revelation last month. I feel like we're going to ask that question more and more. I can only hope more and more of us are inspired, as Snowden was by Levinson (Lavabit's CEO) and many of us have been by both of them, and we act to protect ourselves and constrain our governments from overreaching to where they can't help repeating the…
My reply on Reddit when I see people bring that up is simple: You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: * CIA coverup of the attack on our Benghazi consulate' * IRS targeting of political opposition They're planning on using…
I think you insult their experience much more by allowing your country to become a police state while denying what's happening.
It's true, it could be far, far worse. But that doesn't change the fact that the US is rapidly moving into that direction. The fact that the executive branch and the legislature both support the police state, doesn't make it any less of a police state. Yes, you can call it something else, but a police state by any other name stinks just as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you in that a key difference would be if people were held accountable for illegal acts. However, simply investigating the president is not enough - it would actually need to be possible for him to be accused and held liable. An investigation in which the conclusion is already obvious and no one will be held accountable is not really an investigation, it is only smoke and mirrors. Throwing out one set of…
Why are you so sure these programs are illegal? Might it be possible that you find them distasteful, but that under our current Constitutional and legal regime, there's nothing for anyone to be "held accountable" for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so sure these programs are illegal? Might it be possible that you find them distasteful, but that under our current Constitutional and legal regime, there's nothing for anyone to be "held accountable" for?
The implication is that it's unconstitutional. And a violation on such scale...
That's not to say each and every instance of these programs has always been scrupulously constitutional, but we never expect our government to get it right 100% of the time. That's why the FISA court exists. You may wish its oversight were stronger or its opinions always public, but again, nothing about how it operates is obviously unconstitutional. Certainly not as self-evidently as some people around here seem to assume.
I don't know where I stand on this. I feel like the NSA can't respond because they're trapped by the same secrecy that they operate in from speaking out, although the lies and backtracking don't help, so this echo chamber is just amplifying itself to the point people are making big bold moves that hurt themselves (and their customers) when anyone has yet to demonstrate a single instance of where the NSA has misused their information (if you don't assume the DEA parallel reconstruction is using NSA data, which is maybe speculative or not).
Well at least Obama is meeting with Tim Cook about this, because that makes sense. I've been thinking, why doesn't Tim Cook go talk to the president about this. Because...yeah.
Snowden: "Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and the rest of our internet titans must ask themselves why they aren't fighting for our interests the same way". Indeed, they must. Your move Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple.
Shifting the blame and the burden for policy reform onto firms is not only silly but also unfair, you can't really expect them to shut down, they are not one man operations like Lavabit.
Why not?
How is it possible for Snowden to be inspired any further? He sacrified his life for us. He is the inspiration. Certainly no president in the next few terms will rest until he is rendered, he has to look over his shoulder now forever. Thank you for your sacrifice Mr. Snowden.
Sacrified his life? Please stop. He merely leaked classified data and sold pieces of it here and there. He is basically living the life of a celebrity right now yet dramafies his existence.
He was willing to risk his liberty and possibly his life for his country. That makes him a hero by any reasonable definition.
Why is Lavabit, based out of Texas, appealing in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, West VA, Virginia, North and South Carolina)?
Because NSA, CIA, etc... are in Maryland and Virginia?
So yes, if the NSA and CIA already have proof that Lavabit serves some minimum amount of customers in those states then it would be proper to bring it in that federal district.
But it seems like they a) wouldn't have the proof needed until they got access to lavabit's assets or b) if they had the proof, they wouldn't need formal access to lavabit's assets
Kind of a circular problem but of course since we don't know what he's appealing and why...
Edit: Actually they could just use credit card information to establish customers so nvm
Edit2: Now that I've read a copy of the search warrant linked by someone else in this thread, I see what's going on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so sure these programs are illegal? Might it be possible that you find them distasteful, but that under our current Constitutional and legal regime, there's nothing for anyone to be "held accountable" for?
On the subject of whether it's a police state, illegality is irrelevant. If the law makes it a police state, it's still a police state.
I agree with you in that a key difference would be if people were held accountable for illegal acts.
If you think the law makes it a police state, then argue about the law, but RyanZAG was suggesting that some evidence of a police state is that laws meant to restrain the government are not being enforced.