81–90 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?
Can you point an originalist to the constitutional clause or amendment that grants such a right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He released a lot more than the spying on US citizens. This lawsuit also appears to be about a different thing: the publication of his book. From the complaint (which is the government's side), he was supposed to get pre-authorization for publication and didn't. Therefore, the money from the book goes to the USG instead of Snowden.
Yes, but (frustratingly) it is not illegal within the US jurisdiction for the US government to violate a non-US person's privacy. The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans. Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super dup…
In general, this is false. EVERYONE gets the right to free speech, the right to an attorney and a trial by jury, etc. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that it's OK to take illegal immigrants as slaves because they're not covered by the 13th Amendment.
That said, I do see that legal opinions about Snowden's revelations say that the surveillance is OK for non-USAns. I don't understand how this is supposed to be.
Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor. However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real peopl…
Please show some evidence as to why you think the country's ability to keep us safe was hampered? Has the government shown anywhere that an attack that could have been thwarted wasn't?
People need to get off their high horse. Mass collection of data isn't a method of security. It's a method that's used to try and make up for lack of it. Let's collect all the shit we can and hope to find a needle in a haystack. We have more serious issues to take care of in this country. Sick people are walking around toting assault weapons and IMHO a large swath of the population is suffering from some sort of mental illness which is being allowed to rage unchecked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having known other people who have worked for the NSA, they've had to clear any publications with them before publishing (eg, academic papers in a field related to their work, resumes describing work done at the NSA, etc). My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life. I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.
This all makes sense to me. I share your same expectations. Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. Afaik, he is not one to make these types of mistakes. Looking forward to his response.
”The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations.” What? Either he re…
Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor. However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real peopl…
They've been informed. Perhaps not in a way that you or they might approve of, but they've certainly been informed, loudly and clearly.
Of course,
zilch has changed
It would be a mistake to assume that blowing the whistle quietly, politely, and up the chain of command, might have had better results. The only difference would be that the public would still be in the dark to this very day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?
Can you point an originalist to the constitutional clause or amendment that grants such a right?
> government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations. You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment a…
This makes the US government look like petty idiots. As is the government wasn't already the laughingstock of the entire world. They can't even arrest Snowden (not that they should) and now they want to bankrupt him. I assume Snowden would publish this book with a publisher that's not US based but I don't know the details. Hopefully it doesn't get a penny, this criminal government that forced him into exile.
It was published by Macmillan, which has US offices and subsidiaries. They do fall under US jurisdiction and will likely comply with US courts.
Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his POV.
Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor. However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real peopl…
1. It seem strange that you're blaming the whistleblower, and not the people who violated the constitution to begin with. This is (vaguely) like blaming the dentist for the pain of a root canal instead of your poor eating & hygiene.
2. In the long run, trust in its institutions is critical to US power. The US was a good place to do business specifically because you could trust that you would be treated fairly, speak freely, and the government shouldn't be spying on you. If these institutions stop working, the trust will eventually go away.
You suggest there could be some sort of "other way" that would actually enact change, that way is US citizens voting for lawmakers who care about this.