401–410 of 510 posts
Current Situation: Any trend big money works with, it cannnot be whistleblowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything they're doing is "legal" because they get to decide what is and isn't legal No, phone metadata collection was ruled illegal. Ingesting court ordered FBI wiretaps on foreigners living outside the US who are of interest to national security has never been illegal in the US or in any other country. > That doesn't mean it's ethical or should be hidden from the American public. It isn't hidden from the Americ…
The USG can't put cameras in my house and promise not to look at the video unless I'm a foreigner. That's what this amounts to. Why anyone would defend this is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government spies on foreigners who are suspected to be of national security interest. News at 11. This is the government's job. Why do you feel it needed to be exposed?
> Why do you feel it needed to be exposed? Well because it is basically at scale warrantless wiretapping, of almost every major communication platform(technically its on the internet, and not the phone system, I know). You can feel free not to care if the government has backdoor access, without a warrant, to every major US tech company, I guess. But a lot of people did not know that the government had this, and thus…
How many ways do people need to tell you that it doesn't? It can send wiretap requests for specific accounts to tech companies, which needs to approve each individual request.
> But a lot of people did not know that the government had this,
It doesn't.
> and thus why they are glad that it was exposed.
Where? Which document says they have backdoor access to the tech companies. I'll give you a hint: none of them do. Snowden and Greenwald were both too stupid to read the documents they had obtained and claimed otherwise, but all the rest of the tech media, like CNET and the NYT, reported it correctly.
> Other people, though, actually care about warrants and privacy protections, from the government.
This is something I care deeply about. That's why I'm glad Snowden's documents and the declassified documents both agree the law is being followed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PRISM doesn't involve data from US citizens' accounts. Please review what PRISM is before claiming it is illegal or unethical. It is neither. If you are incapable of reading the documents yourself: if the company receiving the wiretap order has any reason to believe that an account belongs to a US citizen or a non-US citizen living in the US, they challenge the order. No warrant is needed in the US legal system or th…
I'm sorry but reading your posts here is just comical. Can you explain why there are countless stories such as this: NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... You keep writing they were not spying on US citizens, but clearly they were or NSA employees would not be using it to spy on friends/family would they? Did they coin the term "LOVEIN…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did. I read the actual documents Snowden leaked instead of relying on wild conspiracy theories people conjured up out of thin air at the time the documents leaked. If you have evidence, you can file a lawsuit. You don't. You're just repeating conspiracy theories that anybody who understands the law easily spots as nonsense.
Those docs are not the final word. Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws. There’s probably no standing to sue. It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject.
Then tell me, which document says otherwise? I've been waiting.
> Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws
The law forbids the US government from asking anybody to spy on its citizens.
> But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject.
Well "understood" by conspiracy theorists. The rest of us living in reality knows this isn't happening or else we would have filed a lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden actually got a lot of support. I remember that even some high profile corporate executives expressed support... Though a cynical take on that would be that it was just to cover their own asses because they wanted to make themselves (and their companies/platforms) look like victims of government surveillance as opposed to facilitators.
Do you have sources to those executives expressing support?
For example, I remember Marissa Mayer saying something about it at a critical time after the story broke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-...
I think that's why a lot of Americans perceive Snowden much more favorably than Assange even though Assange technically never broke any laws.
It’s a travesty that Edward Snowden is still a fugitive in the United States. James Clapper went in front of congress and lied about the scope of surveillance on US citizens. Snowden saw it as his moral obligation to expose those lies, and he did it in the least destructive way possible by leaking the evidence to qualified journalists.
He probably could have attempted to only leak the domestic surveillance, or at least screen out as much of the foreign intelligence methods as much as possible. Half of it was whistleblowing (domestic surveillance) but half of it was pseudo-treasonous (foreign surveillance).
This was the whole point of giving the docs to the guardian and wapo. Wapo then decided to publish the non-domestic stuff that he asked them not to, entirely their decision and it would not have been published otherwise. Then wapo decided to lobby against Snowden's pardon because non-domestic stuff was published. By them. Just wow. Likewise the Nyt who Snowden did not trust and deliberately excluded, managed to get the archive from the guardian and then went nuts, also blaming snowden for what they themselves published that he asked them not to.
So yeah if you were following along at home it was really hard not to have the reputations of the wapo and nyt take a really massive hit. I genuinely didn't think there were so craven but they are and everything is worse for them being so. It makes me entertain conspiracy theories about how many cia agents are on staff there and in senior editorial positions. Everyone will call that a conspiracy theory and treat it with contempt today and I guess that's fair, no evidence, only stench. Then if & when it comes out in the future, those same people will claim everyone always knew...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you feel it needed to be exposed? Well because it is basically at scale warrantless wiretapping, of almost every major communication platform(technically its on the internet, and not the phone system, I know). You can feel free not to care if the government has backdoor access, without a warrant, to every major US tech company, I guess. But a lot of people did not know that the government had this, and thus…
> You can feel free not to care if the government has backdoor access, without a warrant, to every major US tech company, I guess. How many ways do people need to tell you that it doesn't? It can send wiretap requests for specific accounts to tech companies, which needs to approve each individual request. > But a lot of people did not know that the government had this, It doesn't. > and thus why they are glad that it…
> both agree the law is being followed.
Notice how I didn't say that anything was illegal. The fact that it was legal, is entirely the problem!
I think it is very important for the government to get a warrant, before making these requests.
You can feel free to not care about warrants for these types of requests, but I care about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can feel free not to care if the government has backdoor access, without a warrant, to every major US tech company, I guess. How many ways do people need to tell you that it doesn't? It can send wiretap requests for specific accounts to tech companies, which needs to approve each individual request. > But a lot of people did not know that the government had this, It doesn't. > and thus why they are glad that it…
So then no warrants required for them to make these requests, got it. > both agree the law is being followed. Notice how I didn't say that anything was illegal. The fact that it was legal, is entirely the problem! I think it is very important for the government to get a warrant, before making these requests. You can feel free to not care about warrants for these types of requests, but I care about them.
Not for people who aren't US citizens who live outside the US, no. Is this really news to you? Do you know of any country in the world that requires its intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant for surveilling non-citizens outside its borders?