Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#131

Post by nitrogen »

coldpie wrote: post #38
diafygi wrote: post #13

The actual judgment: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf From the ruling: > Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized, we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants’ constitutional arguments. It appears that the government is starting to lose the ability to always dismiss constitutional rights abused on "state secrets" ground…

It's important to stress the usefulness of monthly donations, as opposed to single donations, even large ones. Monthly donations let organizations like the ACLU and the EFF plan for the future based on a reliable source of income, instead of individual donations which can be peaky.

What are the laws governing endowments? Could an organization fund itself indefinitely based on interest on an endowment assembled from millions of small one-time donations, or are there taxes or other rules that would eat away the endowment?

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#132

Post by nitrogen »

plorg wrote: post #66
scott_karana wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the arguable Manning, Snowden had a deliberate, slow, controlled release of information. No informants were exposed; et cetera. What is wrong with responsible whistleblowing of unlawful activity? I think it should be encouraged!

While it has certainly turned out that way, considering the process of dissemination, both Snowden and Manning dumped a pile of documents on a third party. It's that third party that, in the case of Manning's files (WikiLeaks), was hasty and cavalier in its release of information, whereas Greenwald/Poitras/Etc. have been more careful and deliberate in their releases. To the extent that the individual leakers could ha…

I seem to remember that Wikileaks asked some part of the US government for help redacting the Manning leaks to prevent jeopardizing lives and missions, but they refused.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#133

Post by nitrogen »

rl3 wrote: post #110
scott_karana wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the arguable Manning, Snowden had a deliberate, slow, controlled release of information. No informants were exposed; et cetera. What is wrong with responsible whistleblowing of unlawful activity? I think it should be encouraged!

Snowden's document leaks, and by extension the journalists with whom he entrusted them to, were not restricted in scope to only disclosing illegal domestic collection activities. In fact, the majority of disclosures were foreign in nature, and of those, quite a few ran counter not only to American foreign policy and security interests, but Western interests in general. The articles exposing intelligence activities in…

The citizens of a representative democracy have the right to know what the government is doing on their behalf, either domestically or abroad. Saying that the Snowden revelations damaged relations with another country is like an adulteress complaining that her snitching boyfriend damaged her relationship with her husband. The crime occurred long before the revelation...

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#134

Post by NeutronBoy »

kordless wrote: post #41
a3n wrote: post #3

Pre-Snowden, I wonder if the ruling would have been different. Back then the judges would only know what was presented to them. The government would have obviously presented in a way that was most favorable to them, and their opposition would not have access to crucial evidence. Now that the cat shit is out of the bag, judges and everyone else have more background to evaluate what's in front of them. The government w…

> Thank you Snowden. Fuck you NSA. I'm going to turn that into a sticker and stick it on my laptop.

Unfortunately, 'Thank you Snowden. Fuck you NSA' also translates as 'Fuck the owner of this laptop, yours sincerely, TSA'.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#135

Post by rl3 »

nitrogen wrote: post #133
rl3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden's document leaks, and by extension the journalists with whom he entrusted them to, were not restricted in scope to only disclosing illegal domestic collection activities. In fact, the majority of disclosures were foreign in nature, and of those, quite a few ran counter not only to American foreign policy and security interests, but Western interests in general. The articles exposing intelligence activities in…

The citizens of a representative democracy have the right to know what the government is doing on their behalf, either domestically or abroad. Saying that the Snowden revelations damaged relations with another country is like an adulteress complaining that her snitching boyfriend damaged her relationship with her husband. The crime occurred long before the revelation...

>The citizens of a representative democracy have the right to know what the government is doing on their behalf, either domestically or abroad.

While I agree in a domestic context, that ideal can't really be applied to a foreign context with any specificity, at least in terms of intelligence activities.

The vast majority of intelligence operations rely on secrecy to be effective, and you can't maintain secrecy when you inform your citizenry about it.

I know that sounds bad, but the result would be that the representative democracies of the world wouldn't have effective intelligence agencies, and the other countries would. Not exactly an ideal outcome.

>Saying that the Snowden revelations damaged relations with another country is like an adulteress complaining that her snitching boyfriend damaged her relationship with her husband.

Sure, and if we extend my example using your analogy, the husband is and has been a cheating asshole the entire time. His hobbies include perpetrating various human rights violations on a massive scale.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#136

Post by beedogs »

wehadfun wrote: post #36
toyg wrote: post #29

Now it would be the right time to ask for a presidential pardon for Edward Snowden. Now that candidates are gearing up their campaign platforms, it would be a great vote winner both on the left and on the (libertarian) right. If you live in a "defining primary" state, please go and ask the candidates as soon as they show up.

We may be glad with what he did but do we want to encourage this type of thing? I think quietly "being nice" to him is fine but a public pardon, a welcome hope party, adoring media coverage may inspire some idiot to be the next Snowden and we probably do not want that.

Wrong.

I want as many Snowdens as we can muster. (I was once shadowbanned on HN for typing that sentence.)

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#137

Post by beedogs »

rl3 wrote: post #123
ta0967 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, i didn't know your uncle Bob's spying on me (a "westerner") was in my interest. thank you so much for the enlightment! in other news, Indonesia's oppressive regime has been propped up by the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

If an oppressive regime is created or perpetuated by Cold War-era anti-communist policy, that's certainly a bad thing. Especially so if the regime then commits atrocities (e.g. as in Indonesia). That said, I fail to see how such history should have any bearing on whether or not Indonesia is a valid signals intelligence target today. If anything, it provides compelling justification to continue such programs. In my op…

Not sure what you mean by your last sentence; the US has a pretty abysmal human rights record, as well.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#138

Post by johnchristopher »

LLWM wrote: post #115
johnchristopher wrote: post #88

Question to americans: could that be seen as a sign that someday Snowden may come back to the USA ?

He can return anytime, as long as he doesn't mind facing trial for the crimes he has committed.

Wouldn't his crimes be judged less harshly considering this new turn of events? I remember elected people publicly asking for his death in interviews last year.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#139

Post by rl3 »

beedogs wrote: post #137
rl3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an oppressive regime is created or perpetuated by Cold War-era anti-communist policy, that's certainly a bad thing. Especially so if the regime then commits atrocities (e.g. as in Indonesia). That said, I fail to see how such history should have any bearing on whether or not Indonesia is a valid signals intelligence target today. If anything, it provides compelling justification to continue such programs. In my op…

Not sure what you mean by your last sentence; the US has a pretty abysmal human rights record, as well.

Relative to most other western democracies, the human rights record of the US is obviously profoundly deficient in certain areas. When compared to Indonesia however, in terms of how citizens are treated, I'd argue it's actually quite good.

Re: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

#140

Post by patzerhacker »

Igglyboo wrote: post #87
patzerhacker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even when the answer is going to be yes? Snowden shouldn't need a pardon for what he's done. Any federal prosecutor that would even consider laying charges should be removed from office immediately.

Snowden very blatantly broke laws, if a federal prosecutor doesn't charge him they should be removed from office. The laws he broke being immoral/unconstitutional/for the greater good is to be determined by the judge/jury, not the prosecutor.

Prosecutors have wide discretion in whether or not to charge people. Perhaps they should exercise that discretion.
Post reply on HN