Government Spying on Millions (Verizon)

[BobD]

I'll say this if Snowden was a real hero, he would have stayed here. To my understanding whistle blowers are protected.

Martin Luther King was a hero because he didn't run to China. Ghandi didn't leave India.

He's no hero, just an attention wanting traitor. His justice is coming.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sorry Whisky it isn't the same thing.

It is the same thing as looking at who you are mailing items too and recording that info (and how often you contact them) but not opening it and then sending it on. That is a big difference. I agree that the potential for abuse is high but it is not the same as opening your letters.

My analogy didn't include someone actually reading my mail (yet). As I mentioned, they clearly don't have the resources or the motivation to undertake that type of indiscriminate snooping. But by saving everything I do online in that giant server farm in Utah, it means they could any time they wanted to.

So my mail is intercepted, opened, copied (but not read), filed, and then sent onto the addressee. That doesn't strike you as a pretty serious invasion of privacy?

 

[pkt77242]

My analogy didn't include someone actually reading my mail (yet). As I mentioned, they clearly don't have the resources or the motivation to undertake that type of indiscriminate snooping. But by saving everything I do online in that giant server farm in Utah, it means they could any time they wanted to.

So my mail is intercepted, opened, copied (but not read), filed, and then sent onto the addressee. That doesn't strike you as a pretty serious invasion of privacy?

That is my bad, to me copying includes reading.

I guess I always assumed that whatever I did online was tracked anyways (either by the government or by Google/whoever else wanted too) so I don't find it that invasive. I would find listening to my conversations more invasive though and that would be crossing the line for me. I understand why you feel the way you do, I just feel differently.

 

[drayer54]

 

[phgreek]

More from the Traitor.

New report: Britain spied on G-20 delegates in 2009 - CNN.com

Guy sounds like he may have had some serious issues...

his conduct is quite suspect...but because of him, we know folks in intel will/do lie to congressional oversight. To me that's a problem that needs fixing as much as the process that allows a "Snowden" to get the job in the first place...in terms of chasing the guy down. I'd like to hear him tell his story tip to tail...so yea haul him in...

 

[BGIF]

I'll say this if Snowden was a real hero, he would have stayed here. To my understanding whistle blowers are protected.

Martin Luther King was a hero because he didn't run to China. Ghandi didn't leave India.

Daniel Ellsberg is more appropriate comparison than either King or Ghandi.


Ellsberg worked for a federal contractor and held high level security clearances and leaked secret documents during armed conflict. Unlike Snowden he was highly educated and did not flee the country. Ellsberg actually claimed to be motivated by an anti-war protestor that was headed to prison for standing by his convictions.

 

[Fbolt]

I love the faux outrage over this on Capitol Hill. The NSA's sole purpose is to spy on Americans.

Really? That's their sole purpose? Throwing the flag on that one.

I'm also surprised that people don't know the US government can monitor any electronic communication in the world and they do......been doing it a loooong time.

Absolutely

Good on the guy who leaked this. We need whistleblowers like that.

Really? Sad IMO. Guy is a traitor looking for his fame. If he really wanted to take issue with this, there are avenues such as the IG.

Nobody cares what the average person is doing on the phone or internet. If they weren't taking advantage of the surveillance abilities they have, people would be all up in arms when something terrible happened and it was discovered we could have prevented it by monitoring. Then we'd be hearing how negligent the government is.

Boom. It's already happened. Like 9/11-when NSA apparently had the info but not the personnel to translate. Doesn't matter what the big government does, when they fail, they lose. They cannot do everything and wrap citizens in a complete security blanket-they have to use risk management and try to cover the important issues using their resources to the best of their abilities.

Nobody likes big government-I certainly don't. However, if you want the things that we value-there are consequences. Could it be better-heck yeah-it should be better. We should be holding these politicians/lawmakers responsible. However, as a collective-the nation doesn't.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I did not come to the same conclusion as "bernardpliersFollow".

While in context of Shay's rebellion, it may be rebels were "dingbats"...but it wasn't their "dinginess" that caused the quotable to be spoken. I highly doubt any contemporary, much less Jefferson, would generalize that "dingbat" sentiment to all Rebels...THINK ABOUT IT!

"bernardpliersFollow" should read his last few paragraphs while looking in the mirror...he might also consider that the scholarly historical "context" turns out to be trivia.

PH, buddy, you know I love you man,

But a bunch of people did come to the same conclusion as bernard. Here is one example just to point it out:

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he argued that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[57] In contrast to Jefferson's sentiments George Washington, who had been calling for constitutional reform for many years, wrote in a letter to Henry Lee, "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."

I could go on. People have made a living off of misquoting the Founding Fathers. But the Founding Fathers are in good company. There is no one that people have made more of a living off of misquoting than Jesus. And so it goes . . .

 

[phgreek]

PH, buddy, you know I love you man,

But a bunch of people did come to the same conclusion as bernard. Here is one example just to point it out:



I could go on. People have made a living off of misquoting the Founding Fathers. But the Founding Fathers are in good company. There is no one that people have made more of a living off of misquoting than Jesus. And so it goes . . .

same...forgot to qualify....it was not an attack on you, but rather the source's attribution of dingbat to any rebel that would use Jefferson's quote...because he seemed satisfied that the circumstances and conduct of the rebels of the time were all Jefferson was talking about.

I didn't say that people don't misuse quotations, rather with intent or not. I did say the particular citation you provided seems to somehow assert Jefferson was calling "rebels" dingbats...that is a generalization that simply does not work with a quick analysis of who Jefferson was, the time he said it, and the actual words he used.

Now was Jefferson a different guy in terms of his view of government, rebellion, etc. as he became president, and further on in life...yes he was...but that cannot be applied to the time, place and intent of his comment at that moment in time...and while the background of shays rebellion may tell us the particular rebels and uprising was dingy...it drove people to ponder the general idea of, and measure concern for our own internal Rebellion...It was not the dinginess of the Shay's Rebels that caused Jefferson to make the statement...it was that there were rebels, and what that meant. His statement had specific rebuke of the Rebels logic, a proscription for treatment of rebels in these instances, and a suggestion of how to frame rebellion in general...which is the quote we are discussing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Economist's liberaltarian blogger Will Wilkenson just published an article regarding our treatment of whistleblowers:

The attack on Mr Snowden's reputation is in no small part a rearguard action to keep America's spies and generals beyond the reach of suspicion, to maintain their relative immunity from serious democratic scrutiny so that that the public will continue complacently to trust them when they say, in so many words, "Trust us...or else". But it is democratic affirmation, not uniforms and security clearances, that makes state power legitimate. When the state acts without proper democratic authority, it acts as a rogue operation—as just another band of thugs with money and guns and a dangerous sense of self-righteousness. Whether the NSA's monitoring programmes are actually legal and effective may be more pressing questions than whether Mr Snowden deserves our esteem. But it became possible to address those questions openly only because Mr Snowden chose to speak up. If we wish to keep similarly pressing policy questions available for public examination, we must defend the honour of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

 

[BGIF]

If we wish to keep similarly pressing policy questions available for public examination, we must defend the honour of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Whether you spell it honour or honor, Snowden has none.

 

[BobD]

The Economist's liberaltarian blogger Will Wilkenson just published an article regarding our treatment of whistleblowers:

That article is preposterous.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whether you spell it honour or honor, Snowden has none.

I don't know enough about the situation to declare Snowden a hero or a traitor. I linked that blog post mainly because it addresses the debate over how to characterize Snowden in the media. I'm perplexed by the instinct of many here to dismiss him entirely due to alleged character defects: "He didn't go through the proper channels! He dated a stripper! He's an attention-seeking nerd! etc."

Who does this reflexive condemnation benefit? The most powerful people in the world; who, by the way, have so thoroughly cloaked themselves in state secrecy that they're virtually unaccountable to anyone. Do these people really need to be defended on public message boards? Do they deserve such unquestioning loyalty? Or maybe we should err on the side of a benighted constituency who was never given an opportunity to publicly debate the implications of this policy?

The #1 question should be did he try and use the system to investigate? Seems to me the answer is no. There are avenues to look into suspected power abuses such the Inspector General's Office.

From one of the comments under the blog post linked above:

The low level contractor of the NSA says, "This is some BS" and that leads to his superiors saying, "Oh my God, I knew we forgot to run this by legal. You know how it is, you got the tech guys, the intelligence guys, the builders. Sometimes the little things get lost in the shuffle. Here's a star of freedom and we thank you for bringing this to our attention. We'll issue a press release and hold congressional hearings next week, and we'll run it by a judge as well. Sometimes, we just need an extra set of eyes to tell us that we're wiping our *** with the constitution.

Thanks, Mr. Snowden. You're an American and a patriot and we aren't going to fire you because we want to reward this kind of behavior. Why if we started imprisoning and stonewalling people who took normal complaints, some crazies might be tempted to go to Hong Kong or Finland."

It strikes me as incredibly naive to think that a low-level employee at a private contractor working on a politically sensitive program like PRISM had any real chance of affecting change through the bureaucracy. For that matter, he wasn't even a government employee; do we have any reason to believe that Booz Allen Hamilton had a legitimate process in place for airing such concerns? Because I doubt it.

I understand that many of the people I'm debating against have served in the armed forces and thus have a large range of predispositions that make them more sympathetic to the power structure than the whistleblower here. I'm obviously more inclined to support those challenging the power structure; they need our support a lot more than the government does.

 

[Fbolt]

I don't know enough about the situation to declare Snowden a hero or a traitor. I linked that blog post mainly because it addresses the debate over how to characterize Snowden in the media. I'm perplexed by the instinct of many here to dismiss him entirely due to alleged character defects: "He didn't go through the proper channels! He dated a stripper! He's an attention-seeking nerd! etc."

That was me. He was not dismissed, but based on his actions I have made a decision that he did absolute wrong. The one thing to consider when pointing out the article is that both the author and Snowden are both attention seekers. Not implying that you don't, but I filter the news with experience and facts learned and come to a decision on my own.

It strikes me as incredibly naive to think that a low-level employee at a private contractor working on a politically sensitive program like PRISM had any real chance of affecting change through the bureaucracy. For that matter, he wasn't even a government employee; do we have any reason to believe that Booz Allen Hamilton had a legitimate process in place for airing such concerns? Because I doubt it.

Ha-naive you say? He never gave it a chance. Do we have reason to believe that BAH did not have a process? Regardless if the process was lame or not, the fact that he didn't use "it" is wrong. He didn't even line up in Congress to talk to his elected rep or take it to a Senate committee member. He made the decision on his own. I don't know about you-but if you don't trust the government, your saying you trust this guy more? The same judgement that dated a stripper and knowingly broke laws.

I believe I would have a different view, and am still open to change, if facts come out that show he did go through the "proper channels". However, they're not going to be there.

I understand that many of the people I'm debating against have served in the armed forces and thus have a large range of predispositions that make them more sympathetic to the power structure than the whistleblower here. I'm obviously more inclined to support those challenging the power structure; they need our support a lot more than the government does.

I have no problem questioning the power structure. It's the way in which he chose to do so that bothers me.

Leaking info like this is becoming fashionable and allows one to seek their fame. Go ahead and buy his book whenever he publishes it-I won't.

 

[BobD]

I just like saying "preposterous".

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That was me. He was not dismissed, but based on his actions I have made a decision that he did absolute wrong. The one thing to consider when pointing out the article is that both the author and Snowden are both attention seekers. Not implying that you don't, but I filter the news with experience and facts learned and come to a decision on my own.

Ha-naive you say? He never gave it a chance. Do we have reason to believe that BAH did not have a process? Regardless if the process was lame or not, the fact that he didn't use "it" is wrong. He didn't even line up in Congress to talk to his elected rep or take it to a Senate committee member. He made the decision on his own. I don't know about you-but if you don't trust the government, your saying you trust this guy more? The same judgement that dated a stripper and knowingly broke laws.

I believe I would have a different view, and am still open to change, if facts come out that show he did go through the "proper channels". However, they're not going to be there.

I have no problem questioning the power structure. It's the way in which he chose to do so that bothers me.

Leaking info like this is becoming fashionable and allows one to seek their fame. Go ahead and buy his book whenever he publishes it-I won't.

This is all argumentum ad hominem. Snowden's character is irrelevant to the policy debate here. Attacking the whistleblower instead of addressing the troubling issues he revealed only benefits the power structure, and it further undermines their already insignificant public accountability.

 

[Fbolt]

I never mentioned honor.

I'm looking at his actions, which speaks for itself. Btw-thanks for the Latin lesson.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Btw-thanks for the Latin lesson.

Was in wrong in assuming you know what an ad hominem argument is?

 

[Cackalacky]

I never mentioned honor.

I'm looking at his actions, which speaks for itself. Btw-thanks for the Latin lesson.

Logical Fallacies

Basic rules of logical argumentation. Makes arguing hard as hell and coming up with a cogent point of view even tougher.
For example this is from Bob Schieffer:

Bob Schieffer excoriated NSA-leaker Edward Snowden on Face the Nation this morning, not as a traitor but as a coward who fled the country rather than accept responsibility for his actions.

“I like people who are willing to stand up to the government,” Schieffer began. “As a reporter, it’s my job to do that from time to time.No its your job to do that all the time Some of the people I admire most are in the government. Men and women who led the civil rights movement— Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr.—they are true heroes. I’m not ready to put Edward Snowden in that category. For one thing, I don’t remember Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks running off and hiding in China How quickly we forget what happened to Bradley manning who did stay.. The people who led the civil rights movement were willing to break the law and suffer the consequences. That’s a little different than putting the nation’s security at risk and running away.Strawman, slippery/slope/appeal to pity..several more”

Schieffer was careful not to let his disapproval of Snowden be misconstrued as complete acceptance of the surveillance Snowden revealed, but was also careful to criticize a program about which he knew littleappeal to ignorance.

“I know eleven people who died or lost a member of their family on 9/11,” Schieffer said. “My younger daughter lived in Manhattan then. It was six hours before we knew she was safe. I’m not interested in going through that again. I don’t know yet if the government has over-reached since 9/11 to reinforce our defenses, and we need to find out. What I do know, though, is that these procedures were put in place and are being overseen by officials we elected and we should hold them accountablesweeping generalization among others.....”

“I think what we have in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us. I don’t know what he is beyond that, but he is no hero. If he has a valid point—and I’m not even sure he does—he would greatly help his cause by voluntarily coming home to face the consequences.”

As you will see, there are numerous fallacies in here and once removed nothing in here is anything other than anecdotes and unsupported assertions.

 

[dshans]

This is all argumentum ad hominem. Snowden's character is irrelevant to the policy debate here. Attacking the whistleblower instead of addressing the troubling issues he revealed only benefits the power structure, and it further undermines their already insignificant public accountability.

I haven't followed all the back and forth all that closely. I've paid little attention to just who said just what. I'd posit that the occasional false dichotomy has been put in play. Were I to parse each and every post I might even find a straw man or two proffered.

Argument aside, Fbolt, I salute you for taking the time to investigate argumentum ad hominem, if that is what you did. If not, my assumption led to a false premise.

I'd just prefer to NOT see something like this:

Saturday Night Live Clip (Point Counterpoint: Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola) - IMDb

Unless it's as funny.

 

[IrishinTN]

I haven't followed all the back and forth all that closely. I've paid little attention to just who said just what. I'd posit that the occasional false dichotomy has been put in play. Were I to parse each and every post I might even find a straw man or two

Argument aside, Fbolt, I salute you for taking the time to investigate argumentum ad hominem, if that is what you did. If not, my assumption led to a false premise.

Wait. I know! I know! That was one of Harry Potter's spells, right?

 

[dshans]

Wait. I know! I know! That was one of Harry Potter's spells, right?

It's from the never released "Harry Potter and the Whiskeyjack Rebellion."

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Back to this thing. Maybe Snowden's behavior is important to watch. Maybe in the long run more can be told about the truth and motives of his actions by his behavior. Does he profit from this? Either monetarily, intellectually, ideologically, or merely with celebrity status? Do we watch him bask in the limelight, or give up everything? Won't this tell him more about his state of mind and motivations than anything else? Especially after Bradley Manning.

 

[woolybug25]

How do you guys feel about the fact that he talked to China's government about how we spy on them? He didn't just release basic info on domestic phone records to the US citizens, he openly discussed top secret cyber-attack methodology towards China specifically. Here is a comment that sums up what I mean:

Publicizing America's alleged intelligence-collection programs against China may not be identical to Philip Agee revealing the identities of US clandestine operatives, thereby endangering their lives, but it is close. We do not yet know whether Snowden jeopardized US agents, but vital sources and methods of intelligence gathering and operations are clearly at risk. In cyber terms, this is akin to Benedict Arnold scheming to betray West Point's defenses to the British, thereby allowing them to seize a key American fortification, splitting the colonies geographically at a critical point during the American Revolution.

The political implications are grave. Snowden has given Beijing something it couldn't achieve on its own: moral equivalence. Now, China can portray itself as a victim, besieged by America, and simply trying to defend itself.

Edward Snowden's leaks are a grave threat to US national security | John Bolton | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Whether people realize it or not, we have been at cyber-war with China for a very long time. It's an arms race to find "back doors" into eachother's systems and Snowden showed them our hand. I linked an article below that goes into detail on this, so you can gain background on this topic if you please.

Opinion: Has U.S. started an Internet war? - CNN.com

Moral of the story, I haven't seen anything that pertains to justifying this part of the story. This man is a traitor to our country, imo. I hope he is extradited and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Patulski]

A good read: The Paranoid Style In American Politics

 

[BobD]

Just curious if anyone changed their opinion on Snowden, the NSA or this spy program now that you know how successful the program has been?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How do you guys feel about the fact that he talked to China's government about how we spy on them? He didn't just release basic info on domestic phone records to the US citizens, he openly discussed top secret cyber-attack methodology towards China specifically. Here is a comment that sums up what I mean.

My understanding is that Snowden was a low-level employee at a private intelligence contractor. If we're placing such people in a position to seriously damage our national interests, we have far greater problems than Snowden.

Just curious if anyone changed their opinion on Snowden, the NSA or this spy program now that you know how successful the program has been?

Nope:

Testifying before Congress on Wednesday, Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, asserted that his agency's massive acquisition of U.S. phone data and the contents of overseas Internet traffic that is provided by American tech companies has helped prevent "dozens of terrorist events."

On Thursday, Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, Democrats who both serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and have access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, released a statement contradicting this assertion. "Gen. Alexander's testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA's bulk phone records collection program helped thwart 'dozens' of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods," the two senators said.

Indeed, a survey of court documents and media accounts of all the jihadist terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 by the New America Foundation shows that traditional law enforcement methods have overwhelmingly played the most significant role in foiling terrorist attacks.

This suggests that the NSA surveillance programs are wide-ranging fishing expeditions with little to show for them.

And another post from the Economist's liberaltarian blogger:

Suppose the CEO of Exxon were to promise us that there are absolutely no adverse environmental effects of fracking? On the contrary; it's great for the environment! Would you believe him? Now, suppose it were illegal for anyone not specifically authorised by Exxon to publish any details about how fracking works, or about fracking's effects. You would be a fool to trust him, wouldn't you? I don't see why Mr Alexander's grudging disclosures merit more credence.

If it weren't for the monumental credulity of America's spy-loving public, the NSA might find itself in a bit of bind. Acts of terror against Americans are by all known accounts exceedingly rare and, as we have seen, they pose relatively little real danger to public safety. If the NSA actually has foiled more than a few serious, terrorist plots against Americans in the past decade or so, saving more lives than are lost through bathtub falls, then we must ask why terrorist plots have become so much more common since the inception of the "war on terror"? If they have become more common, we'll need to ask whether the war on terror itself helps explains this increase in terrorist conspiracy. If it turns out that America's security apparatus is thwarting plots that it is itself through its other activities inspiring, a long, detailed list of authentic, thwarted plots may tell us only that America's overweening security apparatus has so far successfully neutralised its own predictable dangers. This sort of "security" can't justify the loss of even a little liberty. So, even if it were not foolish to trust Mr Alexander, the revelation of heretofore unknown foiled plots tells us little of real use about the costs and benefits of the NSA's unprecedentedly comprehensive snooping. Only much greater transparency can possibly serve the needs of a substantive democratic discussion. If the only conclusion the public will be allowed to entertain is that it's all worth it, then the public's verdict cannot in the end confer real moral legitimacy on the dubious activities of Mr Alexander's covert minions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

3 Former NSA Employees Praise Snowden, Corroborate Key Claims:

USA Today has published an extraordinary interview with three former NSA employees who praise Edward Snowden's leaks, corroborate some of his claims, and warn about unlawful government acts.

Thomas Drake, William Binney, and J. Kirk Wiebe each protested the NSA in their own rights. "For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens," the newspaper reports. "They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media."

In other words, they blew the whistle in the way Snowden's critics suggest he should have done. Their method didn't get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on. But they are nonetheless owed thanks.

And among them, they've now said all of the following:

• His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security.
• What Snowden discovered is "material evidence of an institutional crime."
• As a system administrator, Snowden "could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure -- because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, 'I can even target the president or a judge.' If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that."
• "The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth."
• Congressional overseers "have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling them what they are doing."
• Lawmakers "don't really don't understand what the NSA does and how it operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don't understand."
• Asked what Edward Snowden should expect to happen to him, one of the men, William Binney, answered, "first tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed." Interesting that this is what a whistleblower thinks the U.S. government will do to a citizen. The abuse of Bradley Manning worked.
• "There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered."

The fact that former NSA employees have said these things doesn't automatically make them true. All have reason to identify with Snowden (though one thinks he may have crossed a line by talking about surveillance on China). What this interview does mean is that some of Snowden's allegations seem even more credible than they did when he was the only one making them.

 

[Fbolt]

Was in wrong in assuming you know what an ad hominem argument is?

Can't say it's a term I use on a regular basis, although I am now much smurter.

However, as stated, that is not the basis for my position. What he did-his actions in this situation-are my basis. I didn't state that because he dated a stripper he's a traitor. He's a traitor because he leaked the program. His actions - IMO - only damaged the US.

 

[dshans]

A good read: The Paranoid Style In American Politics

Good find/reference. Hofstadter was a part of the reading list and syllabus in a class I had at ND. His writings and the professor's interpretation and elucidation left an impression on me to this day. I still have his book, The Age of Reform, on one of my bookshelves.