Opinions on the NSA

[raiders83]

<p>Most people would never trust a stranger in public to hold onto their wallet until later that day, but people have no problem with trusting strangers who work for the government having 100x that power. It’s not paranoia to be skeptical to those with power over you, it’s wise.</p>

[12rmh18]

<p>When Snowden leaked information about NSA surveillance of US communications, he was a whistleblower. Now that he leaked information about NSA surveillance of Chinese computers, he crossed the line to espionage. According to the 1917 Espionage Act

Section 793 of the law makes it an offence to take, retain or transfer knowledge “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation”.

@The Guardian (UK)

“As much as some may want Snowden to be applauded for his actions, as a legal matter his self-stated laudable intentions are irrelevant to his criminal liability. He can only hope that it will play a role in his sentencing,” argued Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who regularly represents national security whistleblowers.“Having publicly self-admitted his guilt for having illegally leaked classified information, he has eliminated any likely meaningful legal defence. Snowden unfortunately went about his efforts all wrong and missed available opportunities to generate public debate of the NSA programs but still avoid criminal culpability.”

in his interview with The Guardian, Snowden justified his actions by stating, “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” Ironically, the news is reporting that there are now fears that he may defect to China, which does exactly the kinds of things that he abhorred in the US.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>Seems like the Senators aren’t too concerned about this program, since most of them choose not to attend the briefings.
[Senators</a> Skip NSA Briefing: Only 47 Meet With Top Officials On Surveillance](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Senators Skip NSA Briefing: Only 47 Meet With Top Officials On Surveillance | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>

If you find a statement that you don’t think that I can back up, please quote it. I’m pretty careful about not making such statements.

</p>

<p>the problem is a lot of your statements are backed up with press reports that are blatantly false. I know that’s not really your fault though. But it is frustrating to me.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>Seems like the Senators aren’t too concerned about
this program, since most of them choose not to
attend the briefings.</p>

<br>

<p>This isn’t a big deal to most people. I think that Senators realize this.</p>

<br>

<p>the problem is a lot of your statements are backed
up with press reports that are blatantly false. I know
that’s not really your fault though. </p>

<br>

<p>Well, again, you bear the burden of proof in showing that I posted quotes that are blatantly false. Else it never happened.</p>

[geeps20]

<p>^ so Senators usually do what the people want?..lol</p>

[busdriver11]

<p>He does seem to be crossing the line from a man of conscience to outright traitor, as the things he is revealing seem to be intended to hurt the US and our allies. Makes you wonder if that was the intent all along. It would be extraordinary if he turned to China to defect, how hypocritical.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

Well, again, you bear the burden of proof in showing that I posted quotes that are blatantly false. Else it never happened.

</p>

<p>we are clearly going in circles here.</p>

<p>You want reams of NSA data records as proof of things. Obviously you aren’t going to get that.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>so Senators usually do what the people want?</p>

<br>

<p>If Senators feel that their constituents deem something important, then why pursue it?</p>

<br>

<p>we are clearly going in circles here.</p>

<br>

<p>No, you’re going in circles. You make these bombastic comments that aren’t supportable.</p>

<br>

<p>You want reams of NSA data records as proof of things.
Obviously you aren’t going to get that.</p>

<br>

<p>If you don’t know and don’t have the evidence, then don’t pretend that you do. Pretty simple, no?</p>

[calmom]

<p>

He does seem to be crossing the line from a man of conscience to outright traitor, as the things he is revealing seem to be intended to hurt the US and our allies. Makes you wonder if that was the intent all along

He isn’t digging up new stuff – every thing he has to “reveal” is something that took the time to load onto a flash drive or a computer hard drive before he ever left Hawaii. It’s not an accident that he suddenly discovered he’s brought the Chinese surveillance info along.</p>

<p>I’d add that as a legal matter, he is probably guilty of espionage but not treason, because we are not at war with China. (Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere…”) 18 USC 2381.</p>

[12rmh18]

<p>Looks like the NSA was not the only one monitoring communications: Britain’s GCHQ was also intercepting politicians’ communications at the G20 summits in 2009. [GCHQ</a> intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits | UK news | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits]GCHQ”>GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits | GCHQ | The Guardian) This should make for a sporty G8 summit in London this week.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<p>I don’t know that it’s a big deal. I’d guess that every government that can do this does and that there are spies in countries that are allies and enemies.</p>

[calmom]

<p>That’s why I think we are not seeing a muted international reaction. It’s not really news. I think it’s always been assumed that emails and cell phones were not a secure method of communication – that’s why encryption was invented.</p>

[jym626]

<p>

@soccerguy

sounds like a legitimate source… right up there with CURVEBALL. Looks like your “NSA source” is sharing the latest newspaper articles (which as we know, are full of incorrect information on this topic).

</p>

<p>

@calmom

No, someone one the internet knows someone else who has a relative who works for the NSA, has top security clearance, and shares details of everything he knows with all of his relatives. Because you know, that’s what all NSA people do: blab to everyone about their work.

The dismissive, condescending and officious tone is unnecessary and unpleasant. You can believe it- or not. Don’t rightly care. Obviously you don’t. Again, no matter to me. But its real. Not tin hats and paranoia. But that is all to be said.</p>

[calmom]

<p>See [Anonymous</a> Authority](<a href=“http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/45-anonymous-authority]Anonymous”>Logically Fallacious - Webpages)</p>

[jym626]

<p>How predictable. </p>

<p>There are skeptics everywhere. Just like those who don’t accept unproven “treatments” for certain disabilities.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>See Anonymous Authority</p>

<br>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<br>

<p>There are skeptics everywhere. Just like those who
don’t accept unproven “treatments” for certain disabilities. </p>

<br>

<p>There’s anecdotal evidence which is fine as a lower standard (sometimes much lower) of evidence. There’s research too with all of its caveats which may provide a higher standard of evidence.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Anecdotal evidence is an N of one. To expound and believe in charlatan or unproven treatments is folly.</p>

[jym626]

<p>Not that wiki is the best resource, but here is a bit of info <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
This has been known for years and years. Nothing new to see here.</p>

[soccerguy315]

<p>

If you don’t know and don’t have the evidence, then don’t pretend that you do. Pretty simple, no?

</p>

<p>

No, you’re going in circles. You make these bombastic comments that aren’t supportable.

</p>

<p>I already won the warrant issue.</p>

<p>You pretend that you have plenty of evidence by linking newspaper articles (that are wrong).</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>I already won the warrant issue.</p>

<br>

<p>No you didn’t. You don’t know. There’s plenty of wiggle room in what’s already out there.</p>

<br>

<p>You pretend that you have plenty of evidence by
linking newspaper articles (that are wrong). </p>

<br>

<p>Well, point out what’s wrong with them then.</p>

<p>That should be simple, right?</p>