381–390 of 501 posts
> 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non...
Download SF312-13.pdf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their demand for his tax returns is because they've not been able to use anything else to remove him from office. They're hoping they can find a little bit of dirt with which to hang him. Good thing he's squeaky clean.
If he's squeaky clean, why is he scared shitless of people seeing his finance records
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making the same old arguments that gets debunked over and over again. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washin... https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/941723524175187969
That Navy sailor that took pictures inside the sub and got court martialed should get to go free too. And, those FBI memos that Comey took home and then kept after he was fired shouldn't result in his prosecution, either. /s You steal US Federal Government property, you're going to eventually go down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> conflate what is moral with what is legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
I don't think this is the "is ought" problem. Most people recognize the existence of ought, and ought is explicitly recognized as a pre-condition for legal authority. That is to say that we all expect, whether it is justified or not from a philosophical perspective, that ought both exists and that it should be related to legality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although the DoD (or War Department, as it was originally called) is part of the Executive Branch, it (for the most part) operates only outside the country. And military intelligence (for the most part) operates outside normal government constraints. That's how it's always been, throughout recorded history. If you constrain military intelligence too much, as happened in the US between WWI and WWII, and during the 90s…
The DoD hires tech talent, partners with tech orgs on R&D, and contracts with tech companies for expertise. When trust is broken, those relationships are strained.
Regarding talent, the CIA and NSA clearly recruit in academia. However, I've read that the NSA also draws heavily on enlisted personnel, and trains them in house. Also, I've read that it recruits from the non-white-hat hacker community. But maybe that's dated information.
This lawsuit is mostly about paragraph five of the NDA: > 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement. https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non... Download SF312-13.pdf.
Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but this pissed me off.) Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government. - A U.S. Citizen
The private sector surveillance machine is probably more competent and high tech than three letter government agencies (it pays better and gets first pick of the talent pool), is subject to zero oversight, is almost completely lawless, and gathers quite a bit more information.
The NSA at least has to answer to someone and is subject to some law.
If you are concerned about the NSA you should be totally freaked out about Facebook and Google.
This lawsuit is mostly about paragraph five of the NDA: > 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement. https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non... Download SF312-13.pdf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution This feels like one of those things that Americans say, that may not be true. Is this actually true? Do NSA employees state such an oath? Is defense of the constitution more important than defense of the nation if the two are in conflict? Happy to be persuaded that this is true, but feels pretty glib to a non-American.
He took an oath to defend the constitution as part joining the NSA. Many google results, here's one: https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/did-edward-snowd...
> To begin with, did Snowden sign “an oath…not to disclose classified information”? He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted.