General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis was a comment on CNN about Snowden, I thought it was to the point.
It's not so simple as hero or.... This is not about a person or personalities it is about defining ourselves as a society. What sort of world do we really want to live in? Do we trust the government to do the right thing? In my view people ought to look at the history of the last several decades and what the trends are and make their own judgments. In theory, I would support the right of government to insure what it believes are the needs, security of otherwise, of the people. In practice I do not believe the current system exists for any other reason than to enrich the already rich and to make sure the status-quo never changes. I don't believe the government has an interest in my needs or my welfare--it promotes policies and systems that are bad for me personally and appear to harm most people. This, in the end, is what this issue is about.
The "secrets" the government holds are so great and so immense that we know very little about what actually goes on unless we do our own research. The mainstream media is utterly useless in my view in getting at the truth for a variety of reasons that go back, to Walter Lippman's notions on how public opinion ought to be shaped--I leave it to the reader to look into that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)All this other crap that Snowden spouts without evidence, such as the NSA watching our thoughts form as we type, is more like magical Harry Potter crap.
The focus should be on more transparency and less secretiveness.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Because I'd hate to think you were using hyperbolic bullshit language while claiming to hold transparency as an objective.
randome
(34,845 posts)Other than the metadata warrant (which we already knew about) and the fact that we spy on other counties (also known), the rest of Snowden's claims are expected to be taken at face value without any corroborating evidence.
Why didn't he provide evidence that he could hack into the President's email?
Why didn't he provide evidence that the NSA has 'direct access' into the world's Internet providers? (A claim roundly refuted by all the companies involved.)
Why didn't he provide evidence that the NSA can watch our thoughts form as we type?
Why didn't he provide evidence that the NSA downloads the Internet on a daily basis?
Why didn't he explain what he meant when he said he "saw things"?
He was a Systems Administrator, not an Intelligence Analyst, so he never had the access he claimed else he would have provided evidence.
So, no, I'm not going to get up in arms about someone who has no evidence then flees to foreign countries and starts giving away my country's secrets.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"All this other crap that Snowden spouts without evidence,such as the NSA watching our thoughts form as we type, is more like magical Harry Potter crap."
Lots of other stuff you typed up there, but you failed to support your own wild assertion as asked, meaning anything else you type has all the validity of the fiction about watching our thoughts.
randome
(34,845 posts)...leans toward the conclusion that he has no evidence, wouldn't you agree?
So why would anyone think that's happening? All the Internet providers say they do not allow 'back door access' to the NSA.
Of course everyone up and down the line could be lying to us but... 
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Conclusion is that you made that up. You claimed he said it, but refused to cite your claim. You said he said NSA reads our thoughts, equated that to Harry Potter, I asked you to show where he said it. You raved on and on, without any citation of evidence. Meaning you have none, you made that up.
randome
(34,845 posts)Make a list of his claims then compare it to my list.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Offer a cite. I'm not sifting through vids for you. Bring a transcript or even a quote.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
okaawhatever
(9,479 posts)to be informed on the story and not know that detail.
Snowden told the Washington Post and Guardian that the U.S. government had direct access to the central servers of Google, Facebook, and other global Internet companies and said this surveillance capability was so powerful that the government could watch your thoughts form as you type
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-giving-us-secrets-to-china-2013-6#ixzz2XGm9KNCE
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)support for the assertions made. The freak out that followed sort of surprised me. I still don't see a quote from Snowden in your post, by the way. Why is that? Is there no such quote?
okaawhatever
(9,479 posts)As Snowden stated, “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-and-the-disruption-of-government/
AverageMe
(91 posts)hacker can do without too many problems. And if they can do it, what do you think the NSA can do. The question is do they chose to do it , at this time. Would Nixon have done it if he could? So many things that were illegal for Nixon, and he was impeached for are now legal. I'm afraid to say, the terrorist have won, America land of the free, died on 9-11.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's why we have laws, rules, regulations and coordinated levels of approval.
Hell, your local police COULD be looking through your garbage right now. Do you have any evidence that they are?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
pscot
(21,024 posts)why would you doubt government has that capability? NSA and Silicon Valley are joined at the hip. The government's obsession with secrecy parallels and is refreshed by the tech sector's obsessive secrecy. Knowledge is power, and secrecy protects knowledge from escaping to the 99% and bolsters power. And it's all at the service of the owners; our capitalist overlords. Hackers like Snowden are anathema to the tech barons.
5
randome
(34,845 posts)We don't know how the NSA operates but I'm betting there are two or three levels of approval needed to complete any action.
And I don't think Snowden was much of a hacker. Hell, he apparently didn't even understand what a secure FTP server was.
And if he was even an adequate hacker, why didn't he obtain evidence to support his claims?
My point remains. The government could always be doing nefarious things but Snowden didn't show evidence that it is. I'm not invested in looking for problems until I have a reason to do so.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Where is the evidence of any of it?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The transcript has been provided. Thanks.
randome
(34,845 posts)But the source in #22 quotes him.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
randome
(34,845 posts)I will not take anyone's word for anything.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)""All this other crap that Snowden spouts without evidence,such as the NSA watching our thoughts form as we type, is more like magical Harry Potter crap."
You repeat your repetition but you do not provide any evidence that Snowden said NSA can watch our thoughts form.
You know that you are being asked to support that assertion, and you are being intentionally obtuse. Dishonest bullshit.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Get real. You made the assertion in words, back up them up that way. I can't watch crap for you right now. I'm not alone and can not listen to long audio because you are too lazy to back up your assertions.
randome
(34,845 posts)Snowden stated what I knew through other primary sources, that Americans have no clue how extensive the NSA snooping capabilities are, that they literally “watch your thoughts form” (his words) as you use your home computer, and that they do so routinely and by official policy. He stated they have an official policy of lying to prevent disclosure of their capabilities, categorizing their intentionally misleading cover stories a matter of national security. That the NSA (ed: as a minimum) has complete and unrestricted access to your most private data, including text transcripts of billions of phone conversations made every day, a log of all the websites your and your family have visited, they have all of your passwords, total access to bank and brokerage accounts, credit card data, know and catalog your buying patterns, your geographic GPS tracks, your political views and religious affiliations, and that they monitor and archive all of this data for the purpose of automated information mining.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)this 'quote'. It is a crazed bit of language and I'd not be prone to take anyone seriously who speaks like that, but oddly the blog you link to actually claims to have already known that to be true from other sources, your link does not mock Snowden for saying this the author says
"Snowden stated what I knew through other primary sources, that Americans have no clue how extensive the NSA snooping capabilities are, that they literally “watch your thoughts form” (his words) as you use your home computer, and that they do so routinely and by official policy."
The author says he knew Snowden's assertion to be true. The author seems to suggest Snowden's language is poetic rather than literal.
So that link. It is not a sourced quote and it agrees with Snowden, not with you.
Funny stuff, this.
randome
(34,845 posts)You're not playing fair insisting that I provide links!!
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to the way it is discussed. This link claims the quote was given to WaPost and the Guardian, eventually I might actually read a quote from Snowden saying this. You have to admit, this is a bit of work to find a quote. A quote that some claim is common knowledge. But none can actually cite with a source. They saw it somewhere.
Hard to get to the bottom of things with all the malarkey.
randome
(34,845 posts)I didn't pause to capture a link to every item. In retrospect, I should have. 
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Progressive dog
(6,939 posts)"Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with.
AverageMe
(91 posts)as you type it. So it should not be a shock if the NSA also could do the same.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is there any evidence that they are doing that to all 300 million people in America? Is there any evidence provided by Snowden that points to them doing that to anyone? (Other than, presumably, with a warrant.)
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)you won't have transparency and less secretiveness. Transparency and less secretiveness was and is what Snowden did , it really is that simple. Without Snowden we were only guessing. Now we may have court cases.
randome
(34,845 posts)The metadata warrant (legal), which we already knew about.
And the fact that we spy on other countries, which we also knew about.
The most disturbing thing about Snowden in regards to the NSA is that he was able to get access to internal office documents (not private info) while in training.
He has actually shown more evidence that private info is not readily available since he was not able to show us anything to support his claims.
He was, you recall, a Systems Administrator, not an Intelligence Analyst. The guy who fixes printers and sets up email for new employees. So it's hard for me to trust the word of someone who never had access to the things he claims.
Still, overall, yes, it's a good thing that something happened to advocate for more transparency and less secretiveness.
And better controls on the insane march to privatization.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It's encouraging to see this kind of thought outside of DU's circle.
AverageMe
(91 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm getting sick of that self pitying meme.
The middle class has tax breaks on mortgages, exemptions for children, education, etc. There is some social safety net and will be more with Obamacare. The "rich" don't like any of that.
There were several laws to help people during the housing crisis.
There are laws against discrimination, laws for consumers meant to protect them from big corporate shenanigans.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)allowed to share in most o the 'tax breaks' either. We can be fired, denied housing. Not that such things matter to the 'I got mine and you get plenty buster' crowd.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Most of the tax breaks are really meant to help business, not individuals. Like the mortgage interest tax breaks---help sell houses and mortgages. Safety nets have been cut again and again over the past years. Those laws to help people during the housing crisis were not even enforced...have you heard about robo-signing? Have you heard about all the bankers who were thrown in prison? Or fined? Laws against discrimination are not exactly easy to prove, and there are many obstacles in the way of the accuser, but not the abuser. Consumer laws? Most of the consumer laws are silly, like all the warnings on items you buy (do not put your finger in this fan while it is running). But many of these laws do not protect the consumer from real abuses.
Most of the protections and benefits that we (lower and middle class) have are just window dressing. And occasionally, there is a law that really does help us, and I have to wonder how that law got through. Do not accept that all that is said to be beneficial is really benefiting you.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)The thing is that they do not know what he stole exactly and they want that back in case it is made public.
It is a matter of getting their bullshit story together for damage control.
Civilization2
(649 posts)"In practice I do not believe the current system exists for any other reason than to enrich the already rich and to make sure the status-quo never changes. I don't believe the government has an interest in my needs or my welfare--it promotes policies and systems that are bad for me personally and appear to harm most people. This, in the end, is what this issue is about. "
exactly correct,. we know the truth but the results.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)rest of us so they could feel secure in their mansions and country clubs. They don't even feel that obligation anymore.
BrainMann1
(460 posts)I agree with him 100%. Boom
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
