So is anyone else conflicted about the whole Snowden affair?

[jimlup]

I find that I'm generally supportive of Snowden's position but have some doubts about the situation. I don't particularly trust the State with personal information but I do wonder about the security of the population. Since the State isn't listening to specific conversations am I wrong in finding little harm to the blanket monitoring of traffic on the communication highway?

Directed comments appreciated!

[Scuba]

1. It's not the "Snowden affair". It's the "NSA/Booz Allen violation of Constitutional Rights affair".

[graham4anything]

7. Sorry, but there is NO violations as Smith vs. Maryland 1979 decided this 34 years ago.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

21. Nonsense - that case from 79 dealt with a single person

and much less data, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

[graham4anything]

23. sorry, but it was already decided. Smith vs. Maryland 1979. REASONABLE

no matter how many times you say otherwise, it is legal, and that is the law.

So is the other case with the US Post office.

One can only deal with the cards that are dealt. Not the ones that are up the sleeve.
Should've
would've
could've

however, Smith vs. Maryland IS.

[JimDandy]

32. If you are correct, as a spied on American,

don't you agree the laws need to be changed to stop the govt from seizing all of our communications?

[graham4anything]

36. I am more concerned about changing the 2nd, as anyone shot loses all their rights.

[JimDandy]

39. That's not what I asked. I asked if you are

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

supportive of changing the laws so all Americans' communications can no longer be blanket seized by the U.S. government.

[graham4anything]

40. I would wait til there is a new court, maybe 6 to 3 coming in say, 2018.

Do you really think Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts will vote against this?

which is why I think the BushPaulfamilyinc want this decided now, before one of the bad 5 retires.

Once a reinterpretation would happen, that will forever be the law.
And I don't see Rep. Republican Peter King voting against this, do you?

[JimDandy]

43. Again, I did not ask whether this matter should go through the courts.

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I simply want to know if you support changing the laws so they unequivocally state that the government's practice of blanket seizing all Americans' communications is illegal.

[graham4anything]

44. I want $100 million dollars so I could give $96 million away. However, we deal with SCOTUS

and until SCOTUS is changed, I don't want anything decided at all unless there is 100% certainty it will change the right way.

[JimDandy]

45. I've got your answer anyway

and so will anyone else reading this exchange.

Thanks for playing.

[graham4anything]

46. Ralph Nader got what he wanted in 2000, didn't he?

[JimDandy]

47. Non-pertinent, non-committal answers don't interest me.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

See you around the board on other matters.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

53. That case does not cover the massive scope of the gov spying happening now including CONTENT

[graham4anything]

55. So, you agree Heller did not decide the 2nd and a reinterpretation is needed to get rid of bullets

being that the 2nd never applied to any form of 2013 gun, right?

Hey that would be great if we all can agree to rid the streets of all guns/bullets in the hands of individuals.

[uponit7771]

48. So they do a batch pull of the info...same thang

[djean111]

10. Yes. Exactly.

Looks like the deflection of what is actually happening is working, to some extent.
Talking about Snowden at all is just a variation of "Look! There's a kitten!!!'
Looks like that works on a lot of people besides, say, Shrub.
Either what Snowden has leaked is true, or it is not. It is legal, or it is not. Snowden himself is not relevant to that.
Haven't seen any denials from Washington, just obfuscation, smears, and "But it is legal!" and "But it keeps you safe!".

[Kahuna]

2. I'm not. I think he made a very foolish mistake. Since

the news broke years ago about NSA domestic spying, I didn't like the program, but it was voted for by both parties. It will take both parties to do away with it. Snowden's leaks aren't exactly breaking news if one has been paying attention. I suspect that he hasn't been paying attention.

[jimlup]

5. Yeah, apparently the scope of the program is larger than we realized but that is Snowden's

Main contribution. I also don't consider "the support of both parties" to make the policy reasonable.

I guess I tend to lean more towards the liberty is the first priority side and I agree with x that the situation really isn't about Snowden at all which is unfortunately how the media is playing it.

Thanks for the comments...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. That, plus Snowden released TOP SECRET documentary evidence

That has not been claimed to be unauthentic, which the apopolitic reactions by the hill clearly illustrate.

[pnwmom]

49. That's how Snowden wants it. Now he's live-blogging the story. n/t

[uponit7771]

50. The scope was realized more than 5 years ago...don't see what's new in Snowdens info

[Eric J in MN]

8. There was a big story about NSA phone spying in 2006

...but until Ed Snowden spoke out, we didn't know if it was still going on.

[Kahuna]

13. Why wouldn't we assume it was still going on? Until I'm told it is no longer

in effect I will assume that it is still in effect. That's how I roll.

[JimDandy]

28. Ed Snowden's info that ALL AMERICANS are being spied on

by the NSA was NOT known by the public and is big news because it included PROOF...proof which is undeniable by the govt, hence the public's current disgusted outrage.

In 2006, we were told by the govt that that was incorrect and that only communications coming in from outside the country, as well as suspected terrorist communications inside the country, were being monitored.

Now, because of Snowden's undeniable proof, the govt is admitting that ALL Americans' phone meta data is being seized and stored by the NSA, but the govt is still denying they are seizing the content of American citizen's phone calls.

I and millions of others don't and won't believe them this time. It is patently ridiculous that they also wouldn't be seizing digital phone calls, due to the ease of grabbing call contents while they are also scooping up all other digital communications coming thru the same cables.

Another whistle-blower needs to come forward and provide the PROOF of that, now, sop the govt can stop this ridiculous game.

Ed Snowden was not only paying attention, he did something about getting us proof of the illegal actions of our govt. For that, I am very grateful.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Phone logs let the government identify who talked to a journalist.

Without people talking to journalists, the public is in the dark about what the government is doing.

[jimlup]

11. Yeah! Thanks that's an important point which I had not considered...

[graham4anything]

4. I am not conflicted. Its a 100% the same thing as the Miami Dade County "riot". Smith vs. Maryland79

Smith vs. Maryland decided this issue 34 years ago.

[jimlup]

9. Please explain as I am not familiar with that case...

[graham4anything]

16. Smith vs. Maryland, 1979, with REASONABLE/unreasonable being the optimum word

and there is a second one about a physical letter mailed and the REASONABLE expectation that there is NO privacy to the names and address any envelope has on them as people readily let the US Post office mail a letter, and to sort the letter, it goes through many hands of people reading the envelope.
(different case than Smith vs. Maryland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

[Eric J in MN]

15. Do you have more respect for the constitutional interpretations of William Rehnquist

...or Thurgood Marshalll?

In " Smith vs. Maryland" (1979), Rehnquist was in the majority and Marshall in dissent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

[graham4anything]

19. shame then that voters did not want LBJ to be reelected in 1968 and let Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush/Bush

LBJ wouldn't have picked Rehnquist, but the protests of 1968 directly led to Nixon/Ford and Rehnquist.

[suffragette]

64. Glad I'm not the only one noting this about Rehnquist and Marshall

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023005462#post104

Also posts 88 and 106.

[warrior1]

6. there were other ways

legally he could have brought this information to the congress with out jeopardizing out national security.

How many millions or billions of dollars will this cost the American taxpayers to fix what he just spilled.

He's no hero.

[Luminous Animal]

22. 3 NSA whistle blowers who tried "other ways" disagree with you.

Q: Did Edward Snowden do the right thing in going public?

William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand.

Q: So Snowden did the right thing?

Binney: Yes, I think he did.

Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start?

J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct.

Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making.

Wiebe: We failed, yes.

Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[Thinkingabout]

27. Where was Snowden's warrant, he collected information without oversight.

[magellan]

59. Where was the oversight and security to stop him from collecting that information

...and why isn't it already in place? If Snowden can get his hands on this collection of classified data without BAH knowing, what are other analysts looking at and helping themselves to?

[Thinkingabout]

60. He passed security clearance which should become harder for those who has a trail of

Anti government or anti USA views because there appears to be the cause with Snowden. Also, when many employees sign and agree to a Code of Ethics we tend to follow.

[magellan]

62. A security clearance is no guarantee of anything

You don't give someone free reign to access whatever they like just because they have clearance. There is also NEED TO KNOW.

And assuming it's true that Snowden expressed anti-government views (I haven't heard that), then considering his work, BAH failed in oversight there as well.

[JimDandy]

38. The American citizens had a right to know

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

that what they thought were their private communications are actually being seized and stored by our government.

Why would he tell congress anyway? Obama's administration keeps saying congress members were given secret briefings on the matter, and had they attended, they would have known we all were being spied on.

[GeorgeGist]

12. The potential for abuse seems much higher than the potential for usefulness.

[ohheckyeah]

14. I'm not conflicted at all.

Others tried to go through the chain of command. Others tried to bring this to the attention of Congress and get something done. It didn't work. Snowden went the only route that had even a remote chance of working.

The state IS listening and it goes way beyond what even Snowden said.

Listen to the videos at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[snot]

17. A few pros and cons:

1. From http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day: "In a book called Three Felonies A Day, Boston civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate says that everyone in the US commits three felonies every day, and if the government takes a dislike to you for any reason, they'll dig in and find a felony you're guilty of.
" . . . . modern federal criminal laws . . . have exploded in number [and] also become impossibly broad and vague. . . . prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. . . .
* * * * *
"We know what happened in the case of QWest before 9/11. They contacted the CEO/Chairman asking to wiretap all the customers. After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock knowing those things.
"This CEO's name is Joseph P. Nacchio and TODAY he's still serving a trumped-up 6-year federal prison sentence today for quietly refusing an NSA demand to massively wiretap his customers."

2. From http://www.c-cyte.com/Ten_Things_You_Need_to_Know.html: "At a recent symposium, Wikileaks: Why It Matters. Why It Doesn't?, Daniel Ellsberg explained some of the reasons why allowing governments to know everything about us is a problem. He began by referring to the film, The Lives of Others, which is set in the pre-unification G.D.R. and which stated that the goal of that country's secret police, the Stasi, was "to know everything." Ellsberg noted that the Stasi couldn't even dream of the kind of access to citizens' private information that the US government and others now enjoy, thanks to corporations such as Google, Facebook, and AT&T.
"But [Ellsberg continued,] there's a lot that isn't shared on the telephone or in e-mails; things that are said only in bed, or to a relative, or to a friend during a walk in a forest. How do governments get that information? They use the power of the knowledge they've already acquired through wiretaps, data mining, etc. to blackmail people into revealing it. As Ellsberg put it, you want your daughter to go to college, you want this or don't want that; they find out what you want and what you fear, in order to make us into a nation of informants, which is what the G.D.R. was."

All of that said, I do worry that there's something odd about Snowdon and am puzzled as to why this story has had such legs, even though most of us have been aware of the governmental overreach for years because of prior leakers.

[el_bryanto]

18. Yes - very conflicted

I tend not to be supportive of Snowden, while being glad that we are having this debate. The problem is that the debate hinges on stuff we don't seem to actually know.

I don't know what to make of it all.

Bryant

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. Not so much conflicted as I am waiting

The media (both mainstream and blogosphere) are notoriously unreliable in breaking news situations. I'm going to wait a couple of weeks so see what real and what's bullshit. Some things seem worse than the really are, and some things are really worse than they seem.

[Autumn]

24. Not a bit. Our government is collecting our information and I have

no problem whatsoever with him telling us the scope of it. In fact, I appreciate it.

[forestpath]

56. +1

[Skidmore]

25. I am.

Some of it has to do with there is something about this man that I think is a little off for me. Just my instincts, nothing I can hang my hat on but when I have this feeling about people, it is my experience to trust my instincts. So sue me and tough if anyone who reads my response doesn't like it. I won't respond to any slams based on my reaction to him. I just plain old don't trust his motives and I'm not a big fan of Greenwald either.

However, I do have a concern about this fabulous "transparency" he is providing us all as it affects security in the world as a whole. How will this affect the international relations among many states. There are many alliances in the world that are fragile at best. I don't see what good can come from a full frontal exposure on all issues. I get the feeling that some of his staunchest acolytes believe that if you just tell everything, that somehow peoples of the earth will just have epiphanies and throw off yokes of oppression and enemies will party together and all the ills of the earth will be erased. I have a deep uneasiness about all of this. I don't see how stability can arise from it and the last thing this world is more war.

And, finally, I have doubts as to how, given that 75% of the world's population own cell phones, that there are enough people to listen in on every conversation by every person in the world. I also find it mindboggling that with all the information about people sloshing around the electronic universe, data doesn't kind of congeal in a mass somewhere. How about all of those services that do checks on people up the request of an potential employer? Any one of us can tap that mass of data to be mined with a minimal charge.

However, I do share your distrust of the State owning personal information. It seems to me that they already own a great deal of information without having meta-data too.

[jimlup]

26. Thanks . this summarizes my thoughts better than I could have.

[Eric J in MN]

30. Snowden didn't say that someone listens to "every conversation by every person in the world." NT

NT

[Skidmore]

41. You need to tell that to some of his

best fans on DU.

[uponit7771]

51. +1

[appleannie1]

31. I agree totally with all your points. Snowden makes the hair on my neck stand up and I get a funny

feeling in the pit of my tummy. That to me is a sure sign the person causing the feelings is up to no good. So far in my 70 years on earth that feeling has always proved correct. Then there is the issue of his true motives. In a perfect world there would be no need for spying. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

[Catherina]

61. They're not literally listening to every call, but they are recording them

and processing them before they store them.

If you have a conversation with your mom, your call will be recorded, machine processed for keywords, and then stored.

If you happen to say something like "Johnny bombed his exam", then your call gets a closer, automated, look for context of the word "bombed".

If you say something like "We were on our way to Yankee Stadium when Johnny told me he bombed it", expect a closer look.


This is where their weasel words come in. These days, it always depends what the meaning of *is* is.

[MADem]

29. No. I think, if the guy had something to say, there were avenues to say it here in USA.

And there were avenues to say it without compromising national security.

He could have gone to his favorite politician's (Ron Paul's) nutjob son, who has a position on the Senate Intel Oversight bunch, and aired his concerns through that venue. If there was overreach, if laws needed to be changed, that's the way to do it. Not run and tell the Chinese.

[ohheckyeah]

35. The other avenues were tried by others to no avail.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[MADem]

42. Wacky Rand Paul wasn't in the Senate, on the Intel committee, back then.

Randy is looking for a "cause" to vault him to the national stage on his own merits--rather than standing on the shoulders of his quirky daddy.

It would have been a perfect storm. You'd think someone who was a sufficiently ardent Paulbot to have contributed TWICE to the guy's campaign, and who was supposedly a "deep thinker," would have thought deeply enough to come up with that way of doing things.

But no. He goes to Hong Kong and reads from a prepared script.

Forgive me if I think that there are more shoes to drop....

[Andy823]

34. I think he is being used

It all smells of politics and I think Snowdon was used to make this into another "scandal" for political reasons. I could be wrong, but that's how I feel. From what I have seen the only one that could really benefit from this would be Rand Paul, unless of course as has been speculated in other posts there will be a Jeb Bush-Rand Paul ticket in 2016 then this helps them both.

I cold be wrong, but time will tell.

[uponit7771]

52. +1

[jimlup]

58. It doesn't seem to help a Jeb Bush ticket ...

I think a Jeb Bush ticket would be a return to the standard Republican politics... Rand Paul won't be allowed on the ticket in my opinion and if Jeb tries to run then the whole Bush - W disaster becomes fair game again which the repukes can't tolerate.

Yeah, I don't know but I don't think it helps mainstream politicians who are likely to be the party standard for either party. Could be wrong... Republicans have done stupid things before and nominating Jeb would be along those lines.

[loyalsister]

54. A little bit

I think that this can of worms is one that needs discussion and hopefully will be resolved in the court. The interpretations of the 1st Amendment was expanded in a way I didn't like, and I thought the 2 was interpreted to narrowly. I have no idea how this court would rule on this info, and there has been a court ruling that seems to set precedent. I would hope that this pressure will push congress to pass a law the requires more narrow strict parameters. As I am watching it unfold I'm growing somewhat weary of it. I don't feel threatened and I am hoping that we can get through it with results that put it to rest soon.
I think Snowden is fame seeker and the way he keeps making public and stoking the anger in folks who are most angry makes me question his sincerity. His original motives may have been pure, but the way he has handled himself makes me doubtful now.

[Lint Head]

57. I think the entire problem is the way private contractors and subcontractors are used to replace

government needs. When private profit making corporations are involved there will always be a problem. Corporations don't get involved with government without profiting in some way even though most federal government contracts are suppose to be "break even" propositions. I have worked for a couple who bid for government contracts. I feel that private entities involved directly in federal government operations is a conflict of interest and the private entity will always use the opportunity to their advantage. The government should be as big as it needs to be to serve the growth of population. Private corporations are not needed to fill the gap. The small government argument is a right wing thing that promotes private entity involvement who cares nothing about rights and only about profit.

As long as we are ruled by fascist theocratic corporate powers who decide what we consume and how we are ruled we lose our rights with every tick of the clock.

[davidpdx]

67. I agree, the use of contractors is something that absolutely should not have been done

This is similar to the complaint against the industrial military complex. We have corporations outside the government that are running different programs and it makes me wonder who's controlling whom?

I don't think the surveillance is right, I think the program should be investigated and clarified as to what is going on without jeopardizing the programs. If it needs to be scaled back, then Congress needs to act and change the laws as well as actually show up at the damn briefings they are given. Congress is partially to blame for this.

At the same time, I'm not happy about how it came out or what might still come out in the future. People say well all these people tried through the proper channels, I personally would like to see a little more proof. If they did, then there has to be some way of proving it.

I'm not trying not to take one extreme or the other as some have. I don't think it's nearly as black or white as people make it out to be.

[nobodyspecial]

63. No, it is clearly black and white

Either you support this American hero who is single-handedly saving democracy in the U.S. or you are an Obama butt kisser who is cheering on fascism.

[Kahuna]

65. Wow. So simplistic in so many ways. nt

[Savannahmann]

66. Several points

First, I don't care about Snowden. He could be anything that anyone says he is, and the important point is this, are they monitoring/spying upon us? The answer is yes.

First the fallacy. That nobody is looking at the information without a warrant. That is asinine. If that was the case, the NSA could handle it in house with no more than half a dozen people who sit and play solitaire and link paperclips going for the office record of the longest paper clip chain waiting for a warrant to sort the data for information on suspect A. Booz Allen wouldn't have known about the program, much less have access to the briefing documents, or the data if that was the case. So the first lie is that nobody is doing anything with the data. Obviously that is false, because the NSA needs an even bigger facility to help them sort, store, and manage the data.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Number 2. Phone metadata without the PRISM information is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Let's say that we know that suspect A talked to bad guy B. Then what happened? Did Suspect A get on the net and access a website with instructions on how to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb? Without that second half, you can't tell if Suspect A is really a person of interest, or a moron who dialed the wrong number, or his pet, or child, or whatever dialed the number by mistake. So you need his computer browsing history, and phone browsing history, too. That is just to get enough information for a regular warrant to put the suspect under normal feds in a van surveillance.

You see how quickly the claims fall apart? If they aren't doing anything with the information, then why do they need so many people to manage it that they had to hire a company to provide additional people to help with it? If it is just stored and held there accessed until a warrant is issued, then why is it such a huge secret that nobody is allowed to know about it? IF that was the case, I could almost see it is a secret situation, but Top Secret Secure Compartmentalization? That's a little extreme for a routine, and if you have had continuous warrants since the bloody thing went online it is absolutely routine, gathering of information.

Listen to the answers that the Government gives, and then ask yourself if they are reasonable. Because once you question authority, you might not ever learn the truth, but you'll be less likely to believe the lies. I don't know how bad this Cell Phone Metadata/ Prism stuff is, but I know it's not nearly as innocuous and no big deal as they claim it is. Because their claims, don't make any sense when you think about them for a minute straight.