With the news that the NSA is gathering data from Verizon...

[GarthUte]

and other carriers, it's time to go back a few years to listen to Obama's words. Of course, it should be noted that he forgot to start his comments with the words "Unless I'm President":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs

[Damage U]

Ya but, that is sooooo 2007.

[Damage U]

Plus, it was wrong because the "R's" where doing it, but now that the "D's" are doing it makes everything just fine...unless you're an "R".

[LA Ute]

I hope I don't have to turn in my conservative card, but this doesn't bother me much. It's basically data mining and there's lots of oversight.

I think people are up in arms about this because of the AP and IRS scandals and the Obama team's apparent fondness for "The Chicago Way (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-19/news/ct-met-kass-0519-20130519_1_chicago-mayors-father-and-uncle-the-chicago-way)." But data mining under then supervision of the courts and Congress is something very different and I think it keeps us safer.

I did have to laugh at O's reference in the video clip to "illegal wiretapping." Such smooth demagoguery.

[Chad Sexington]

You havemuch more faith in govt assurances than do I. Govt promising to "police" itself is tantamount to the fox soberly, gravely promising to guard the chickencoop.

It is my opinion that if something is possible then the govt is doing it. Right or wrong. Institutions within the govt do not struggle with morality or other ambiguities.

[GarthUte]

I hope I don't have to turn in my conservative card, but this doesn't bother me much. It's basically data mining and there's lots of oversight.

I think people are up in arms about this because of the AP and IRS scandals and the Obama team's apparent fondness for "The Chicago Way (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-19/news/ct-met-kass-0519-20130519_1_chicago-mayors-father-and-uncle-the-chicago-way)." But data mining under then supervision of the courts and Congress is something very different and I think it keeps us safer.

I did have to laugh at O's reference in the video clip to "illegal wiretapping." Such smooth demagoguery.

This is Obama earlier today. In this clip he comments that "you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience". My response is to quote Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTXbGGxPIzQ

Chad is right. Trusting the government is foolish.

[LA Ute]

Chad is right. Trusting the government is foolish.

I'm not saying that, because I don't think this (as I understand them) involve any surrender of liberty. The FISA courts are run pretty tightly and overseen carefully. You'd need all three branches of government to conspire in order to have abuses.

If this program has stopped a major terrorist attack on the USA, as Rep. Mike Rogers says it has (he's a conservative Republican), then it seems to me a good argument can be made that it is worthwhile. I don't want to be trying to tell a man whose kids were killed by terrorists that I feel terrible for him, but we needed to make sure we didn't give up any liberty and I hope he understands.

[chrisrenrut]

Ben Franklin was a smart dude, but could he have anticipated the world as it is now?


Cell phones
email
internet
air travel
compact high powered explosives
Nuclear weapons
cross boarder travel (increased by the nth degree)


Are privacy and convenience essential liberties? What small liberties have we already given up as a matter of security that we deem as normal now?

[GarthUte]

I'm not saying that, because I don't think this (as I understand them) involve any surrender of liberty. The FISA courts are run pretty tightly and overseen carefully. You'd need all three branches of government to conspire in order to have abuses.

If this program has stopped a major terrorist attack on the USA, as Rep. Mike Rogers says it has (he's a conservative Republican), then it seems to me a good argument can be made that it is worthwhile. I don't want to be trying to tell a man whose kids were killed by terrorists that I feel terrible for him, but we needed to make sure we didn't give up any liberty and I hope he understands.

This data mining didn't do much good in Boston.

I'm not saying that I would look father in the eyes who lost kids that we don't need to give up liberties, but I wouldn't tell him that I'm okay with giving up liberties. I'd just tell him that I was sorry for his loss and nothing more.



Ben Franklin was a smart dude, but could he have anticipated the world as it is now?


Cell phones
email
internet
air travel
compact high powered explosives
Nuclear weapons
cross boarder travel (increased by the nth degree)


Are privacy and convenience essential liberties? What small liberties have we already given up as a matter of security that we deem as normal now?

He may not have been able to know what we have today as far as technology is concerned, but if he were alive to day, I honestly believe that he'd feel exactly the same way as he did in his day.

As for liberties already given up, how do you feel about the TSA? Yeah, that was Bush and I was against it then, but is anyone happy we have it?

[Scratch]

Regarding the Franklin quote, I don't really think we're giving up any "essential" liberty, and I think we're receiving much more than "a little, temporary safety." People love throwing out that quote for every single security measure without recognizing that every safety measure we have in society, including every security measure that everyone considers essential (like having police) involves giving up liberty.

[LA Ute]

This data mining didn't do much good in Boston.

I'm not saying that I would look father in the eyes who lost kids that we don't need to give up liberties, but I wouldn't tell him that I'm okay with giving up liberties. I'd just tell him that I was sorry for his loss and nothing more.




He may not have been able to know what we have today as far as technology is concerned, but if he were alive to day, I honestly believe that he'd feel exactly the same way as he did in his day.

As for liberties already given up, how do you feel about the TSA? Yeah, that was Bush and I was against it then, but is anyone happy we have it?

I'm sympathetic to your point of view (you know that) but I just don't see what liberties we are giving up here. By going through the metal detector at the airport we are submitting to a search. It's a pain and I do it knowing I am giving up some liberty, but I do it anyway hoping I'll be safer.

[Chad Sexington]

Regarding the Franklin quote, I don't really think we're giving up any "essential" liberty, and I think we're receiving much more than "a little, temporary safety." People love throwing out that quote for every single security measure without recognizing that every safety measure we have in society, including every security measure that everyone considers essential (like having police) involves giving up liberty.
NOW you are talking like a true anarchist!

[LA Ute]

All you cell phone data are belong to us.

[Chad Sexington]

All you cell phone data are belong to us.
Don't worry. We know how to find you...and your little dog too!

[LA Ute]

In honor of Garth and Chad:

596

[GarthUte]

And here's one for you, LA :)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/995913_520376804664667_1188660681_n.jpg

[concerned]

Regarding the Franklin quote, I don't really think we're giving up any "essential" liberty, and I think we're receiving much more than "a little, temporary safety." People love throwing out that quote for every single security measure without recognizing that every safety measure we have in society, including every security measure that veryone considers essential (like having police) involves giving up liberty.

That Franklin chesnut is up there with the Jefferson quote that every generation needs a (bloody) revolution, or something like that.

[UBlender]

I just saw a friend on facebook state that he would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in a country with compromised personal liberties. Really? You'd rather die than have big brother mining your emails and texts? Sometimes people say completely illogical things just to make a point.

Now to be clear, I don't like where this is headed. But given the choice of two extremes I'll go with survival over privacy.

[Ma'ake]

As an Econ student at the U in the 1980s, we were told by one of our professors that because we were enrolled in his course we would likely be tagged by the FBI as potential problems, because he had been deemed a threat to national security because of his views. (This was the Cold War and he was quite critical of Capitalism).

He never got into trouble, I never heard of any trouble, in fact I was hired by the FAA later.

Now that I work in IT, I have access to a LOT of data, email, etc, but I simply don't have the time, interest or need to look at it.

I would imagine the NSA uses sophisticated algorithms to comb through unimaginable amounts of data looking for warning signs. Trust me, looking at peoples' email or where they go web surfing gets uninteresting, exceptionally fast. (I've had to do that in HR cases - it's just penetratingly boring work.)

This is really much ado about nothing, in my opinion. A lot of the same people who are dragging Obama through the mud on this issue are the same folks who would be in favor of profiling muslims.

Had the government been able to stop Tim McVeigh before he killed 167 people due to his extremism, I would have thought that would be a good thing.

[Diehard Ute]

Having spoken directly to several of the 'techie' guys the Feds have, they can't do what many think they can.

They just don't have the manpower or time to track things specifically and directly.

I sort of sit in the middle on this. Not sure I like it or hate it.

I will say, having had to do it a couple times on people reported to be missing and endangered, tracking cell phones is much cooler on TV than in the real world :)

[GarthUte]

Having spoken directly to several of the 'techie' guys the Feds have, they can't do what many think they can.

They just don't have the manpower or time to track things specifically and directly.

I sort of sit in the middle on this. Not sure I like it or hate it.

I will say, having had to do it a couple times on people reported to be missing and endangered, tracking cell phones is much cooler on TV than in the real world :)

Wait...you mean the tech folks can't immediately find the location of who they're looking for and track him in real time with a little red or blue dot on a google-type map of the city?

[Diehard Ute]

Wait...you mean the tech folks can't immediately find the location of who they're looking for and track him in real time with a little red or blue dot on a google-type map of the city?

Haha. Not even close. :)

[GarthUte]

Haha. Not even close. :)

You've just ruined NCIS for me. Now, I won't be able to watch without thinking it's fake. :cry:

[Diehard Ute]

McGee is a hacker....

[Chad Sexington]

Bit of a read, but I enjoyed it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102168/Bilderberg-Group-No-conspiracy-just-the-most-influential-group-in-the-world.html

[Ma'ake]

The NSA leaker has stepped forward: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/politics/nsa-leak-identity

Interestingly, he cites Daniel Manning as a kind of hero and is attempting to find asylum in Hong Kong, which now is under the control of Beijing.

It appears we've found bi-partisanship, on both sides of this general issue. Republicans joining Democrats and Obama defending the need to be on guard against threats, and different Democrats and Republicans together in outrage against the notion their government has access to their private data.

Once the dust settles from this revelation, we may see proposals to narrow the deficit by making this data (or subsets) available to corporations for large sums of money, as a kind of ultimate marketing database.

Who lines up on which side of that debate would be revealing, me thinks.

[LA Ute]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/06/10/yzusu2e4.jpg

[Rocker Ute]

I'm sympathetic to your point of view (you know that) but I just don't see what liberties we are giving up here. By going through the metal detector at the airport we are submitting to a search. It's a pain and I do it knowing I am giving up some liberty, but I do it anyway hoping I'll be safer.

I think the difference is that one you are saying, "Yes, I want to fly so I'll submit to these rules..." The other is monitoring simple existence. And as mentioned by others, we give up liberties all of the time for security such as submitting to police when requested, etc, but there are lines drawn and rules in place to protect the citizen.

What Ma'ake said is correct too, people are remarkably uninteresting. If you don't believe that spend some time on Facebook, but there is little motivation to monitor you or me. However, we are operating under the assumption of things being hunky dory now.

(A quick aside: We talk about security issues with this info, but with the government having all of this data, what keeps them from mining and intimidating people with other political views as they seek reelection, etc. Or reselling this info to marketers? Or even worse, realtors?)

My issue with all of this is there seems to be no real checks or balances, and just a 'trust us, this is for your good' mentality. It very well may be, but those sort of things can change quickly. I mentioned on uf.n that I think that since we are a representative democracy, that we should appoint expert representatives from each state (I suggested two appointed and one elected) charged specifically with monitoring these efforts. They could help determine thresholds that would trigger more monitoring and action, how data is monitored and stored (data storage and the risks of that is another discussion for another day) etc. This would be their sole purpose and hopefully operate like a judge keeping them separate from the power and corruption that is possible with our current elected officials.

Different times call for different measures, but the pattern has been established centuries ago, and we should have better checks and balances in place.

[LA Ute]

I'm starting to come around to the "this bothers me" point of view. Here's an interesting op-ed by Glenn Reynolds:

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2405991

[Dawminator]

I'm starting to come around to the "this bothers me" point of view. Here's an interesting op-ed by Glenn Reynolds:

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2405991

Well said. Mr. Reynolds did a good job of summarizing my thoughts and feelings on it. What is sad to me is how apathetic many of the left are to the encroachments into personal liberties and government abuse when their guy is in power. If all the scandals outlined in the beginning were done under Bush they would be screaming...and the Republicans could then be just as apathetic. Time for people to wake up and realize what the common problem is with abuses under Bush (Warrantless wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc.) and abuses under Obama (NSA, IRS, Sebelius, DOJ, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc.): too much government.

[Rocker Ute]

Well said. Mr. Reynolds did a good job of summarizing my thoughts and feelings on it. What is sad to me is how apathetic many of the left are to the encroachments into personal liberties and government abuse when their guy is in power. If all the scandals outlined in the beginning were done under Bush they would be screaming...and the Republicans could then be just as apathetic. Time for people to wake up and realize what the common problem is with abuses under Bush (Warrantless wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc.) and abuses under Obama (NSA, IRS, Sebelius, DOJ, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc.): too much government.

I think the left's apathy was matched by the right's before when the right's guys were in power. In fact I have seen a near perfect correlation on this stuff and have been shocked by people who I was certain would be upset who are now making the same excuses the right made when the Patriot Act was first passed. "I have nothing to hide... it keeps us safe..."

I'm harping on this now like I did before because people are paying attention once again, but I need to shut up because my fanaticism about it is just becoming noise.

I think my first paranoia came in about 2002. I was working for an ad agency and we had bought a high end digital printing machine and it was having some color registration problems. We had the guy from the company come and repair and when it was recalibrated one of the graphic designers pulled out a loop to look at it and says, "Hey, I think it still has a problem, it is putting a yellow pattern over everything." Sure enough as we all looked through the loop there was a pattern you couldn't see with the naked eye, but was definitely there. He tinkered around for a while and couldn't get it to go away and finally called in for some help. He finally got someone who told him that the company would not comment on why there was a pattern being printed invisible to the eye.

Every other high end color digital printer (I haven't tried it on home versions of these) has done the same thing. We speculated it was so that the government could track for counterfeit money, but even when they got more sophisticated and wouldn't even let you scan money, the pattern remained.

Queue the dramatic music: Duhnn duhn duhnnnnnnnn.

But my point is this... whatever side of the aisle you favor, and even if you believe that these things are being used properly you should be concerned about the checks and balances managing these things. I personally don't believe they are adequate.

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

[Ma'ake]

Washington Post did a survey on the NSA revelations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

Sure enough, political orientation had a lot to do with how strong the support of NSA activities, relative to who is in the Presidency.

I can relate to GOP citizen concerns, because I had the same distrust when Bush was president. (Actually, it was Cheney who concerned me more. I could definitely see him deciding to "suspend the Constitution to save the Constitution" and engaging in a cleansing campaign, not unlike what we've seen in Latin America in the past.)

Republicans simply don't trust Obama, and don't like him. The reverse is true for Democrats and any given Republican. If the roles were reversed and Romney was at the helm when Snowden decided to let everyone know what's up, Democrats would be going bananas right now.

The difference between Republicans & Democrats on these issues is Republicans are more likely to have guns and feel like they could/should engage in an overthrow of the government.

[LA Ute]

For those who (like me) still don't know what to make of all this, here's an interesting and informative article that pretty much tells us what we don't know yet.


5 Basic Unknowns about the NSA "Black Hole" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=5-basic-unknowns-nsa-black-hole-prism)
It's still unclear if the National Security Agency has been collecting all Americans' phone and other records, and for how long

[pangloss]

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/scaneagle.page What I don't know, hear or see can't hurt me, right?

[Dawminator]

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/scaneagle.page What I don't know, hear or see can't hurt me, right?

False.

[Rocker Ute]

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/scaneagle.page What I don't know can't hurt me, right?

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

[LA Ute]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

600

[Dawminator]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

+10

[LA Ute]

601

[GarthUte]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

:clap:

[Jarid in Cedar]

601

:rofl:

[LA Ute]

This is a pretty persuasive piece.


EDWARD SNOWDEN IS NO HERO

POSTED BY JEFFREY TOOBIN

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html

You don't have to like what the NSA is doing to despise what Snowden did.

[GarthUte]

603

[GarthUte]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMc5nO0CUAAleAP.jpg

[pangloss]

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

I don't accept the inevitability of a slippery slope that what has been disclosed about the NSA will lead to drones watching over us all or the government filtering data for anything suspicious. Collecting telephone meta-data and not analyzing it unless there is a specific warrant is not the same thing as you fear. Collecting, listening and analyzing communications outside the US is not the same thing as you fear. And neither of those violates the law.

This stuff needs oversight and periodic re-calibration. With accelerating technology the re-calibration ought to happen more often. But that's the way the system works. And my support of the NSA programs (as described so far) and condemnation of Snowden is not due to apathy.

[LA Ute]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

[Scratch]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

[LA Ute]

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

Yes. We may call you "grasshopper" from time to time, however.

[Rocker Ute]

I don't accept the inevitability of a slippery slope that what has been disclosed about the NSA will lead to drones watching over us all or the government filtering data for anything suspicious. Collecting telephone meta-data and not analyzing it unless there is a specific warrant is not the same thing as you fear. Collecting, listening and analyzing communications outside the US is not the same thing as you fear. And neither of those violates the law.

This stuff needs oversight and periodic re-calibration. With accelerating technology the re-calibration ought to happen more often. But that's the way the system works. And my support of the NSA programs (as described so far) and condemnation of Snowden is not due to apathy.

My drones example is obviously an absurd one and was never meant to be a 'slippery slope' inevitability. It was an analogy to help people visualize what is happening on the web. There is no physical drone sitting above your head, it is happening in cyberspace.

As far as the government filtering data for anything suspicious, isn't that what they are doing right now with these programs. Isn't the whole center in Bluffdale to process and filter intelligence. Isn't this what they refer to when they speak of noise and chatter leading to terrorist attacks?

And I am not saying this isn't necessary, and that no good comes from it. It does. I am just saying that I personally DON'T believe the checks and balances are in place to fully protect citizens, I guess I'm always suspicious of our government. That probably comes from years of seeing them fall short on promises.

Perhaps my perspective comes from the fact that I am on the private/commercial side of tracking and analyzing and know exactly what you can learn about a person from their device usage and web surfing habits, you don't need to know the deep specifics, you can figure that out from the pattern of behavior.

[USS Utah]

I think the left's apathy was matched by the right's before when the right's guys were in power. In fact I have seen a near perfect correlation on this stuff and have been shocked by people who I was certain would be upset who are now making the same excuses the right made when the Patriot Act was first passed. "I have nothing to hide... it keeps us safe..."

I actually found it to be completely predictable. There are exceptions, of course, but most people seem to fall into a pattern I've noticed since at least Clinton's impeachment.

Something else that is completely predictable, when there is a hint of scandal, is that the media will trot someone out to proclaim that "this is worse than Watergate" if a Republican is in the White House, or "This is nothing compared to Watergate" if the president is a Democrat.

[GarthUte]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

I grew up during the Cold War too and I remember how Americans felt about the government of the Soviet Union protecting the citizens by spying on them, having access to their phone calls etc.

Why should anyone trust that the government won't abuse this?

[Dawminator]

I am not on the side of LA, Pangloss, and Scratch apparently. I actually applaud Snowden for bringing this to light. If I had any say I would pardon him immediately. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't buy into most, if any, of the crap you can find. Human history teaches us, however, that governments are corrupt. I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will. Count on it. I think citizens should always show a healthy measure of distrust towards their governments as the ultimate check on its power. This little rule applies to Russia just as it does to the USA.

I think there are some who are more likely to trust the government when their man is in charge, but when that letter changes before the President's name the government just got a whole lot scarier. That is sad. The government has the potential to be scary all the time. This is only more true with the crazy technology we have available.

There is so much information out there on all of us via Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook alone. I have an Android phone, tablet, two Gmail based email accounts, and use Chrome as my default browser. I am pretty clean when it comes to how I use each of them, but all it would take is one "rogue" NSA agent (just like those "rogue" IRS agents...I am calling bull on that by the way) to filter for certain things. Or let's say I become very successful in the business world. I am very outspoken against certain types of government intrusion, but otherwise I am a tax paying and law abiding citizen. What if, due to my success and position I have a lot of influence and people listen to what I say (or because of the nature of my business I can help/hurt certain political agendas). Are you telling me it would be hard for the government to look at all of my Google information, try to find something that could harm my reputation, and either blackmail me or let it leak? And what if I prove that the government had done that to me and misused the information? If the damage is done there is not much else I can do, and the government may have accomplished what it wanted out of making me an example. Given what we know now, and what has happened in the recent history of our government I don't think this scenario is all that crazy.

I am sure there are some of you who think I am crazy for believing the safeguards we have in place could be violated, that our check and balances are paper thin, and that people in our government are capable of such sinister plotting, but I think you are more crazy if you don't.

End.

[Dawminator]

Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States GOVERNMENT and WILL be prosecuted and WHEN convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.



Fixed it for you.

[concerned]

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

So, Mussolini--which of the other two is Hitler and which is Tojo?

BTW, this is why Snowden may not have committed treason:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-92687.html

[LA Ute]

I grew up during the Cold War too and I remember how Americans felt about the government of the Soviet Union protecting the citizens by spying on them, having access to their phone calls etc.

Why should anyone trust that the government won't abuse this?

I trust our security apparatus until it gives me a reason not to trust it. Example: I trust the police until an officer gives me a reason not to. (I still dislike getting traffic tickets.) In the NSA's case I am leery of how much data they have and what can be done with it. I think they need to be watched carefully and it looks like that's happening. If there are abuses those responsible need to be stomped on.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. I acknowledge that responsible, thoughtful and intelligent persons whom I like a lot may have differing opinions!

[Rocker Ute]

I am not on the side of LA, Pangloss, and Scratch apparently. I actually applaud Snowden for bringing this to light. If I had any say I would pardon him immediately. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't buy into most, if any, of the crap you can find. Human history teaches us, however, that governments are corrupt. I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will. Count on it. I think citizens should always show a healthy measure of distrust towards their governments as the ultimate check on its power. This little rule applies to Russia just as it does to the USA.

I think there are some who are more likely to trust the government when their man is in charge, but when that letter changes before the President's name the government just got a whole lot scarier. That is sad. The government has the potential to be scary all the time. This is only more true with the crazy technology we have available.

There is so much information out there on all of us via Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook alone. I have an Android phone, tablet, two Gmail based email accounts, and use Chrome as my default browser. I am pretty clean when it comes to how I use each of them, but all it would take is one "rogue" NSA agent (just like those "rogue" IRS agents...I am calling bull on that by the way) to filter for certain things. Or let's say I become very successful in the business world. I am very outspoken against certain types of government intrusion, but otherwise I am a tax paying and law abiding citizen. What if, due to my success and position I have a lot of influence and people listen to what I say (or because of the nature of my business I can help/hurt certain political agendas). Are you telling me it would be hard for the government to look at all of my Google information, try to find something that could harm my reputation, and either blackmail me or let it leak? And what if I prove that the government had done that to me and misused the information? If the damage is done there is not much else I can do, and the government may have accomplished what it wanted out of making me an example. Given what we know now, and what has happened in the recent history of our government I don't think this scenario is all that crazy.

I am sure there are some of you who think I am crazy for believing the safeguards we have in place could be violated, that our check and balances are paper thin, and that people in our government are capable of such sinister plotting, but I think you are more crazy if you don't.

End.

Snowden is an enemy to our country and to you. He could have blown the whistle without attempting to compromise the security and safety, as well as undermine the good things that do come from this program, and yes there are many good things that likely come from all of this. Yet he sits in Hong Kong with reportedly a couple of laptops filled with classified info that he could hand over to enemies.

For others watching me debate this, please don't mistake things I've said in the past into thinking that I believe that these programs and what they are doing shouldn't be classified. There is good reason for this info to be classified, and good reasons for everyone to not know the extent and ability of what they are doing.

It is why I call for different/better oversight vs transparency.

To illustrate with an oversimplified example. On the web security certificates get issued to provide encryption, a standardized 'handshake' and also to say, "As a third party, we have vetted this site, and they are who they say they are." Part of the encryption is a public key and a private key. These asymmetrical keys ensure that things are basically on the up and up publicly and you are connecting to who you think you are, but also are what keep the conversation private.

It is much more complex than that, but the point is this, we can mimic that same security in real life. A third party to say, "yes, this is legit" while keeping things secret as they need to be.

It is possible to have the best of both worlds, and that is all I am calling for.

[GarthUte]

Snowden is an enemy to our country and to you. He could have blown the whistle without attempting to compromise the security and safety, as well as undermine the good things that do come from this program, and yes there are many good things that likely come from all of this. Yet he sits in Hong Kong with reportedly a couple of laptops filled with classified info that he could hand over to enemies.

For others watching me debate this, please don't mistake things I've said in the past into thinking that I believe that these programs and what they are doing shouldn't be classified. There is good reason for this info to be classified, and good reasons for everyone to not know the extent and ability of what they are doing.

It is why I call for different/better oversight vs transparency.

To illustrate with an oversimplified example. On the web security certificates get issued to provide encryption, a standardized 'handshake' and also to say, "As a third party, we have vetted this site, and they are who they say they are." Part of the encryption is a public key and a private key. These asymmetrical keys ensure that things are basically on the up and up publicly and you are connecting to who you think you are, but also are what keep the conversation private.

It is much more complex than that, but the point is this, we can mimic that same security in real life. A third party to say, "yes, this is legit" while keeping things secret as they need to be.

It is possible to have the best of both worlds, and that is all I am calling for.

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.

[Solon]

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, NSA surveillance of international communications (telephone) has yielded information to block terrorism attempts. In addition, it's a machine/computer program reading your e-mail, not a person. This somehow makes it less invasive in my mind.

On the other hand, it's always dicey to spy on US citizens (this is essentially what's going on). I know that the internet age has spawned some new ethical concerns, since it's hard to show decisively that e-mail correspondence is truly international (and therefore free-game for NSA scrutiny). At the very least, I think there should be some additional transparency about how much information these private companies are harvesting.

Besides, any decent terrorist knows better than to send sensitive information via e-mail. They just share a single e-mail account and convey all of their communication via saved drafts (often in white font that won't show up on screen-shots). This way, nothing is ever "sent" and is less likely to be intercepted.

Duh.

[pangloss]

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.


After the abuses of the 50's, 60's and 70's, open ended trust would be silly. What I trust is the rule of law and the checks and balances built into the system -- plus the periodic review of laws like the Patriot Act.

You write "Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US?" When he provided highly classified materials to people without a 'need to know' he met your criteria. It was not up to him to judge whether the materials were properly classified. If he believed laws were being violated he should have run it up the agency organization flag poles. Reporting the violation of law is whistle-blowing -- an honorable course of action. If he thought the rule of law process was inadequate to salve his conscience he should have quit, and if grave enough, gone to a US press outlet publicly, turned himself in to the FBI and accept the consequences. What he did was despicable.

[pangloss]

You write,


... I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will.

End.

I do not think the IRS scandal proves anything of the sort. This seems to be a fairly concise account of what happened http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/

Assuming it is an accurate description (which needs to be investigated to confirm) it is an example of stupid actions and not nefarious, evil government run amok.

The NSA stuff is more difficult. Transparency in the spy business is self defeating. But to assume the government employees in the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, ATF, NRO or the other three letter agencies are un-patriotic, evil and part of some vast conspiracy to surveil US citizens in violation of the law seems very far fetched to me. And I have heard nothing reported that is even vaguely similar to your scenario.

So yes, I believe in the rule of law the checks and balances in our system. It's the bedrock of the Constitution. I believe.

[GarthUte]

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, NSA surveillance of international communications (telephone) has yielded information to block terrorism attempts. In addition, it's a machine/computer program reading your e-mail, not a person. This somehow makes it less invasive in my mind.

On the other hand, it's always dicey to spy on US citizens (this is essentially what's going on). I know that the internet age has spawned some new ethical concerns, since it's hard to show decisively that e-mail correspondence is truly international (and therefore free-game for NSA scrutiny). At the very least, I think there should be some additional transparency about how much information these private companies are harvesting.

Besides, any decent terrorist knows better than to send sensitive information via e-mail. They just share a single e-mail account and convey all of their communication via saved drafts (often in white font that won't show up on screen-shots). This way, nothing is ever "sent" and is less likely to be intercepted.

Duh.

In today's world with the internet, everything we post, every photo we upload, etc. is out there forever for anyone who has the capability and resources to find. The problem is that unlike individuals, the government has unlimited resources to take a look at what everyone is doing, which makes the government more likely to use that info out there against citizens than any individual or even corporation. Granted, corporations have gathered a ton of info about all of us, but they don't have the authority to punish anyone with accusations of law breaking.

I'd rather the government stay out of my personal business, but if it's going to do it, I want absolute transparency about what it is gathering and how much it has. After all, if I have nothing to hide, neither does the government.

[Dawminator]

So yes, I believe in the rule of law the checks and balances in our system. It's the bedrock of the Constitution. I believe.

Even if I grant to you that nothing nefarious is currently going on, and I may even be willing to concede that. With this type of power I am telling you it is only a matter of time before the situation I describe happens. Its human nature. Its the nature of governments. Despite Checks and Balances. It is going to happen.

[Dawminator]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1MXdUFeE9

[Dawminator]

I can't help but wonder how many people would have a different view on this if Bush were president....some would say its okay...others would say its scary. One of the problems with parties I guess.

[Dawminator]

I thought these posts were fun:

http://www.utefans.net/message.php?id=1476705

http://www.utefans.net/message.php?id=349515

http://www.utefans.net/message.php?id=628043#message628028

and my favorite...I will just leave this hear

http://www.utefans.net/message.php?id=349634

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can't help but wonder how many people would have a different view on this if Bush were president....some would say its okay...others would say its scary. One of the problems with parties I guess.

They already have, back in 2006-7. The partisanship of it is frustrating. Personally, I blame The Patriot Act for a good chunk of this. And it was overwhelmingly passed by both chambers.

[Dawminator]

They already have, back in 2006-7. The partisanship of it is frustrating. Personally, I blame The Patriot Act for a good chunk of this. And it was overwhelmingly passed by both chambers.

Read my links...That is what I was getting at with my question.

And Kudos to Garth for consistency

[GarthUte]

I can't help but wonder how many people would have a different view on this if Bush were president....some would say its okay...others would say its scary. One of the problems with parties I guess.

For the record, I've never been a Bush fan and would be just as ticked about it if it had come out during his administration that this was happening. Of course, it really doesn't matter, as Obama is the POTUS and has been for the last 4 1/2 years, so his is the administration that is going to take the heat for this. And rightfully so.

[Dawminator]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/14/cbs-news-confirms-multiple-breaches-of-sharyl-attkissons-computer/

[Scratch]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/14/cbs-news-confirms-multiple-breaches-of-sharyl-attkissons-computer/

It seems like I'm in the minority, but to me, this seems like a much, much bigger deal than the NSA stuff.

[Dawminator]

I don't think you can look at any of these stories in a vacuum

[LA Ute]

I like Krauthammer's take:

Their View: Pushing the envelope, NSA-style (http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_23457168/their-view-pushing-envelope-nsa-style)


Thirty-five years ago in United States v. Choate, the courts ruled that the Postal Service may record "mail cover," i.e., what's written on the outside of an envelope — the addresses of sender and receiver. The National Security Agency's recording of U.S. phone data does basically that with the telephone. It records who is calling whom — the outside of the envelope, as it were. The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope. It may not be opened without a court order.

The constitutional basis for this is simple: The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for what's written on an envelope. It's dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read once again by the letter carrier. It's already openly been shared, much as your phone records are shared with, recorded by, and (e)mailed back to you by a third party, namely the phone company.

Indeed, in 1979 the Supreme Court (Smith v. Maryland) made the point directly regarding the telephone: The expectation of privacy applies to the content of a call, not its record. There is therefore nothing constitutionally offensive about the newly revealed NSA data-mining program that seeks to identify terrorist networks through telephone-log pattern recognition....

The problem here is not constitutionality. It's practicality. Legally this is fairly straightforward. But between intent and execution lies a shadow — the human factor, the possibility of abuse. And because of the scope and power of the NSA, any abuse would have major consequences for civil liberties.

The real issue is safeguards. We could start by asking how an Edward Snowden, undereducated, newly employed, rootless and grandiose, could have been given such access and power. We need a toughening of both congressional oversight and judicial review, perhaps even some independent outside scrutiny. Plus periodic legislative revision — say, reauthorization every four years — in the light of efficacy of the safeguards and the nature of the external threat.

The object is not to abolish these vital programs. It's to fix them. Not exactly easy to do amid the current state of national agitation — provoked largely because such intrusive programs require a measure of trust in government and this administration has forfeited that trust amid an unfolding series of scandals and a basic problem with truth-telling. There are nonetheless two other reasons these revelations have sparked such anxiety. Every spying program is a compromise between liberty and security. Yet here is a president who campaigned on the proposition that he would transcend such pedestrian considerations. "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he declared in his first inaugural address, no less. When caught with his hand on your phone data, however, President Obama offered this defense: "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. ... We're going to have to make some choices as a society." So it wasn't such a false choice after all, was it, Mr. President?

[GarthUte]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/14/cbs-news-confirms-multiple-breaches-of-sharyl-attkissons-computer/



She has suspected this (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/sharyl-attkisson-something-fishys-been-going-on-with-my-computers-since-early-2011/) for quite some time and has been rather vigilant in her reporting about Fast and Furious and Benghazi. Is there anyone who thinks this is a coincidence?

You can listen to her comment about her suspicion about something going on with her computers in the youtube video in the link I provided.

[codered]

All the things my generation was taught about the evilness of Russia and China and the lack of freedom and the complete gov't control, yea, that's us now. Sad days indeed


It seems like I'm in the minority, but to me, this seems like a much, much bigger deal than the NSA stuff.

[Applejack]

It's not often that I get to join hands with BOTH Dawn-the-animator and Garth!

:jig:

[pangloss]

I like Krauthammer's take:

Their View: Pushing the envelope, NSA-style (http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_23457168/their-view-pushing-envelope-nsa-style)

Yikes, I like his take also. What's this world coming to?

[pangloss]

All the things my generation was taught about the evilness of Russia and China and the lack of freedom and the complete gov't control, yea, that's us now. Sad days indeed

Outrageous claims require solid substantiation. Please cite one instance in our country that is even vaguely similar to the gulags, the interrogations at Lubyanka, or the Cultural Revolution.

Hyperbole, extravagant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extravagant) exaggeration, does not bolster your credibility.

[LA Ute]

Yikes, I like his take also. What's this world coming to?

It's this website. It has good kum-ba-yah karma. Or maybe it's just a wise old codger thing.

[concerned]

It's this website. It has good kum-ba-yah karma. Or maybe it's just a wise old codger thing.

Holy crap. Me too. pass the marshmellows, graham crackers and chocolate.

[Chad Sexington]

Outrageous claims require solid substantiation. Please cite one instance in our country that is even vaguely similar to the gulags, the interrogations at Lubyanka, or the Cultural Revolution.

Hyperbole, extravagant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extravagant) exaggeration, does not bolster your credibility.
Just in this instance, or generally? The CIA uses secret prisons. Guantanamo (whatever happened to the outrage over that?). The use of torture. I get that we are eternally fighting for our way of life, it's just that we are losing our way. That deterioration of principles and values doesn't't happen overnight. We gradually let it slip away if we relax our vigilance.

[Dawminator]

Outrageous claims require solid substantiation. Please cite one instance in our country that is even vaguely similar to the gulags, the interrogations at Lubyanka, or the Cultural Revolution.

Hyperbole, extravagant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extravagant) exaggeration, does not bolster your credibility.

The Japanese internment camps during WW2...or forced sterilizations during the 1920s.

Not trying to be a jerk Pangloss, but why has your opinion changed from the last link I posted above when you were expressed fears and worries over the NSA when Bush was president and now?

[pangloss]

The Japanese internment camps during WW2...or forced sterilizations during the 1920s.

Not trying to be a jerk Pangloss, but why has your opinion changed from the last link I posted above when you were expressed fears and worries over the NSA when Bush was president and now?

I absolutely support oversight, checks & balances and limits on the intelligence community. Today's technology gives an organization like the NSA incredible potential for good and harm. That said, the Snowden affair and the press coverage of it puckers me up. The guy harmed our country's national security and he's described as a whistle-blower hero.

With your bringing up 80 and 70 year ago examples, maybe I misunderstood where you were going. I thought you were saying the events over the last decade or less were the events indicating our decline. Even then, comparing anything in US history with the Cultural Revolution or the Stalinist purges is way off base. The Japanese internment camps were a dreadful stain on the country's history - but they weren't gulag slave labor camps.

cheers

[Scratch]

I absolutely support oversight, checks & balances and limits on the intelligence community. Today's technology gives an organization like the NSA incredible potential for good and harm. That said, the Snowden affair and the press coverage of it puckers me up. The guy harmed our country's national security and he's described as a whistle-blower hero.

With your bringing up 80 and 70 year ago examples, maybe I misunderstood where you were going. I thought you were saying the events over the last decade or less were the events indicating our decline. Even then, comparing anything in US history with the Cultural Revolution or the Stalinist purges is way off base. The Japanese internment camps were a dreadful stain on the country's history - but they weren't gulag slave labor camps.

cheers

Once again (for this subject at least) I'm with Pangloss 100%.

[codered]

The whole point of my post wasn't comparing our gov't actions to slave labor camps, etc, but I was pointing out that all the 'negative' things we were taught about that 'proved' that the USA's Gov't was in comparison, so much better that those of the China's and Russia's of the world, are in fact now in existence here. The examples of our gov't trying to take complete control over our lives show that. Gun Control, spying on innocent civilians, health care mandates, etc... The list goes on and on. I read an article yesterday of how the gov't is trying to force LDS canneries out of business. I didn't have time to verify the accuracy of said article, but sadly, at this point, I wouldn't doubt it.

Of course it's all done in the name of protecting us from ourselves, right? Ironically history has shown, almost without exception, that every horrible, nasty, evil gov't the world has ever faced all started out in similar fashions. We have 20/20 hind sight that allows us to see that these were truly evil men, but their country men almost always found them favorable in the beginning, when they felt like those leaders were protecting them from harms way. It's a slippery slope. Regardless of your political leanings you surely have to see that.


I absolutely support oversight, checks & balances and limits on the intelligence community. Today's technology gives an organization like the NSA incredible potential for good and harm. That said, the Snowden affair and the press coverage of it puckers me up. The guy harmed our country's national security and he's described as a whistle-blower hero.

With your bringing up 80 and 70 year ago examples, maybe I misunderstood where you were going. I thought you were saying the events over the last decade or less were the events indicating our decline. Even then, comparing anything in US history with the Cultural Revolution or the Stalinist purges is way off base. The Japanese internment camps were a dreadful stain on the country's history - but they weren't gulag slave labor camps.

cheers

[LA Ute]

Once again (for this subject at least) I'm with Pangloss 100%.

So do I. The fabric of the space-time continuum continues to tear. Lol.

[GarthUte]

The whole point of my post wasn't comparing our gov't actions to slave labor camps, etc, but I was pointing out that all the 'negative' things we were taught about that 'proved' that the USA's Gov't was in comparison, so much better that those of the China's and Russia's of the world, are in fact now in existence here. The examples of our gov't trying to take complete control over our lives show that. Gun Control, spying on innocent civilians, health care mandates, etc... The list goes on and on. I read an article yesterday of how the gov't is trying to force LDS canneries out of business. I didn't have time to verify the accuracy of said article, but sadly, at this point, I wouldn't doubt it.

Of course it's all done in the name of protecting us from ourselves, right? Ironically history has shown, almost without exception, that every horrible, nasty, evil gov't the world has ever faced all started out in similar fashions. We have 20/20 hind sight that allows us to see that these were truly evil men, but their country men almost always found them favorable in the beginning, when they felt like those leaders were protecting them from harms way. It's a slippery slope. Regardless of your political leanings you surely have to see that.

Unlike others, I agree 100% with codered here. He's correct when he points out that the US government abuses of today is very similar than those of the Soviet Union when the Kremlin was spying on the citizens and controlling behavior. History has shown again and again that governments eventually get so corrupt that they decide that their job is to no longer allow citizens to make the decisions that affect their own lives. That's where we're headed and if we decide that we're fine with a little bit of spying for the sake of safety, then we'll get there sooner rather than later.

I've also heard about the LDS canneries east of the Mississippi being shut down, but haven't found anything that verifies it, but it wouldn't surprise me if it happens because this administration doesn't believe in the citizenry being self sufficient.

[pangloss]

So do I. The fabric of the space-time continuum continues to tear. Lol.

I had a TIA episode a few weeks ago. They did a bunch of tests and didn't find any damage. I'm wondering if it really did break (or fix) something.

[pangloss]

Unlike others, I agree 100% with codered here. He's correct when he points out that the US government abuses of today is very similar than those of the Soviet Union when the Kremlin was spying on the citizens and controlling behavior. ...

Maybe I'm just an old fashioned conservative patriot with an un-abiding faith in the good ol' U.S. of A

Well, not really. The one institution I believe makes our country different is the rule of law. The old Soviet & Chinese Communitsts also had codified judicial systems but the institutions were a joke. Neither had a Mayberry vs Madison decision that took and judicial decisions were little more than a rubber stamp on the executive.

When the courts are subverted it's time to worry. Which is also why the Swallow episode turns my colon. I heard a story on the radio recently that there are rumblings in China about the lousy rule of law where the big commercial organizations are in arms (figuratively) over other Chinese companies stealing their intellectual property and they are unable to enforce their rights in the lousy courts. So they're pressing for court reform. Poetic justice, 'eh?

[Dawminator]

Not going to lie Pangloss, I would describe Snowden as a whistle blower hero. I think he did our country a huge service by bringing this to the forefront of our attention. It will now plant the seed in millions of minds, even if they don't have a problem with it now, that the government has too much power/information. Ten years from now, more people will distrust the US government with this type of stuff because of Snowden, and in my opinion not trusting your government is very, very healthy.

[LA Ute]

Not going to lie Pangloss, I would describe Snowden as a whistle blower hero. I think he did our country a huge service by bringing this to the forefront of our attention. It will now plant the seed in millions of minds, even if they don't have a problem with it now, that the government has too much power/information. Ten years from now, more people will distrust the US government with this type of stuff because of Snowden, and in my opinion not trusting your government is very, very healthy.

The problem with Snowden, Dawm, is that there were a half-dozen other ways he could've "blown the whistle" without jeopardizing national security and everyone's safety. My question is, how did such a narcissist with such grandiose tendencies get access to such sensitive information? That question needs some serious review.

[Chad Sexington]

The problem with Snowden, Dawm, is that there were a half-dozen other ways he could've "blown the whistle" without jeopardizing national security and everyone's safety. My question is, how did such a narcissist with such grandiose tendencies get access to such sensitive information? That question needs some serious review.
Don't worry. The government is right on top of you...errrr...it.

[LA Ute]

Don't worry. The government is right on top of you...errrr...it.

Like I said, we need to be very wary of government surveillance of citizens. But Snowden is no hero. Quite the opposite.

[Dawminator]

Like I said, we need to be very wary of government surveillance of citizens. But Snowden is no hero. Quite the opposite.

Who would you prefer he blow the whistle to? Any answer that includes a government body I reject on its face as insufficient.

[USS Utah]

Who would you prefer he blow the whistle to? Any answer that includes a government body I reject on its face as insufficient.

Certainly not to the Chinese.

[LA Ute]

Certainly not to the Chinese.

Agreed. Dawminator, I don't accept your view that no one in the government was worthy of being approached. Snowden could have gotten a lawyer and then carefully approached the appropriate Inspector General for the NSA. Here's that web page:

http://www.nsa.gov/about/oig/index.shtml

The NSA IG's mission:


The NSA/CSS Office of the Inspector General is the independent agent for individual and organizational integrity within the Agency. Through professional inspections, audits, and investigations, we work to ensure that the Agency respects Constitutional rights, obeys laws and regulations, treats its employees and affiliates fairly, and uses public resources wisely to accomplish its mission. We also work with other IGs in the Defense and Intelligence Communities to advance these common goals.

Every Cabinet department has an IG that pretty much cannot be fired for doing his/her job, which is to be a watchdog over the agencies within that department. It was the Treasury IG who disclosed the targeting of conservative groups. Once Snowden had gone through that process he would have been protected as a whistleblower and it would have been nearly impossible for the government to prosecute him or even to fire him unless he broke the law in a pretty egregious manner.

Failing that, Snowden could have then lawyered up and gone the New York Times or Washington Post. At least those are American newspapers who are sensitive to the country's security needs. Instead he went to a British paper, the Guardian, which has a reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing activity. Yes, he might have had to man up and face prosecution, but he would have been seen as this century's Daniel Ellsberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg).

There are probably other things he could have done, like pick a sympathetic U.S. Senator and gotten his or her support. Instead, he went to China, of all places. The Guardian reports that a crowd in Hong Kong protested at the U.S. Embassy in support of Snowden:


Do not extradite Edward Snowden, protesters urge Hong Kong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/15/do-not-extradite-edward-snowden-hong-kong-protesters)
Demonstrators call on government to protect NSA whistleblower and attack US over internet spying programmes




Why am I skeptical that this is a spontaneous show of support by the citizens of Hong Kong?

I will not be surprised if Snowden now defects to China.

[Dawminator]

I think where we differ is that I strongly believe the public has a right to know, at least ethically speaking, what is going on with the NSA and this particular surveillance tactic. Going to an IG, even if we assume the process is honest and on the up and up, may not have resulted in public disclosure. I say boo to that. And how would he have identified a sympathetic senator? That could be a difficult task.

Now in terms of defecting to China and him seeking refuge there I have a few strong thoughts on it. Some will (and already have) pointed out that it is ironic that Snowden went to China considering the state of that country's civil rights. And I first I agreed. It may also seem funny that Russia is offering asylum. I lived in Russia, and you could sometimes hear people listening to your phone calls. I always said hi to them. I also lived in Belarus which has been called the last dictatorship in Europe. These experiences have largely shaped my opinions on government. Now, to my point. If I were in Snowdens place I don't know what I would have done differently. There is something grossly offensive about the USA doing what it has done. It is a huge violation of trust in my opinion. America has always stood for something more. We were supposed to be different. Yes, China and Russia are much worse on Civil Rights. But their betrayal is nothing compared to the one done by our government. China and Russia are expected to do this sort of thing...we weren't. So in some ways were I the whistle blower, I would rather end up in China and Russia because they don't pretend to be something they are not. Of course, neither would have been my first choice.

Our government has too many secrets. Here is to making the disgusting state of our very own corruption the worst kept "secret" out there.

[LA Ute]

I think where we differ is that I strongly believe the public has a right to know, at least ethically speaking, what is going on with the NSA and this particular surveillance tactic. Going to an IG, even if we assume the process is honest and on the up and up, may not have resulted in public disclosure. I say boo to that. And how would he have identified a sympathetic senator? That could be a difficult task.

Now in terms of defecting to China and him seeking refuge there I have a few strong thoughts on it. Some will (and already have) pointed out that it is ironic that Snowden went to China considering the state of that country's civil rights. And I first I agreed. It may also seem funny that Russia is offering asylum. I lived in Russia, and you could sometimes hear people listening to your phone calls. I always said hi to them. I also lived in Belarus which has been called the last dictatorship in Europe. These experiences have largely shaped my opinions on government. Now, to my point. If I were in Snowdens place I don't know what I would have done differently. There is something grossly offensive about the USA doing what it has done. It is a huge violation of trust in my opinion. America has always stood for something more. We were supposed to be different. Yes, China and Russia are much worse on Civil Rights. But their betrayal is nothing compared to the one done by our government. China and Russia are expected to do this sort of thing...we weren't. So in some ways were I the whistle blower, I would rather end up in China and Russia because they don't pretend to be something they are not. Of course, neither would have been my first choice.

Our government has too many secrets. Here is to making the disgusting state of our very own corruption the worst kept "secret" out there.

I don't want to get into a big argument with you, Dawminator, but what is it in the NSA program that you think is similar to what a police state like Belarus or even Russia would do? The NSA is not listening to random citizen's telephone conversations or reading their e-mail. As I understand the program, they are gathering data on who calls whom, especially outside the USA and in countries with known terrorist organizing activity. It's like keeping track of who sends 'snail mail" to whom, but not reading the contents of the mail. The Postal Service has been doing that for years and it is constitutional. Am I missing what the NSA is doing that bothers you?

I do think there is a trust issue, especially with this administration. But that's different from the actual program.

[GarthUte]

The problem with Snowden, Dawm, is that there were a half-dozen other ways he could've "blown the whistle" without jeopardizing national security and everyone's safety. My question is, how did such a narcissist with such grandiose tendencies get access to such sensitive information? That question needs some serious review.

How did such a narcissist with grandiose tendencies get elected in 2008 and 2012?

I'm with Dawm. Snowden is a hero. And I fail to see really how jeopardized the security of the country. Sure, potential terrorists may now know that they're being watched, but those of us who aren't doing anything have one less way about the government meddling into our private lives to worry about. If the government wants to look for spies, they can find another way to do it without looking at my emails, your emails, pangloss' emails, dawn's emails, etc. It's none of the government's business anyway what any of us are saying.

[codered]

Subverted courts you say?

You mean like the trial getting ready to start right now for a man in Florida, who by most unbiased accounts has all the evidence in the world that he shot a man out of self defense. Yet because that young man was black, HE is on trial for murder? Or the courts that found Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the White Water scandal? Yet everyone who was willing to testify against ended up dead? Or the courts that approve same sex marriage yet refuse to hear a single case regarding polygamy.

I'm not claiming the sky is falling. But a whole lot of crap keeps hitting us on the head and from the smell of things, we may want to start to find cover under something heavy. I fear for my kids and grand kids. I seriously do.


Maybe I'm just an old fashioned conservative patriot with an un-abiding faith in the good ol' U.S. of A

Well, not really. The one institution I believe makes our country different is the rule of law. The old Soviet & Chinese Communitsts also had codified judicial systems but the institutions were a joke. Neither had a Mayberry vs Madison decision that took and judicial decisions were little more than a rubber stamp on the executive.

When the courts are subverted it's time to worry. Which is also why the Swallow episode turns my colon. I heard a story on the radio recently that there are rumblings in China about the lousy rule of law where the big commercial organizations are in arms (figuratively) over other Chinese companies stealing their intellectual property and they are unable to enforce their rights in the lousy courts. So they're pressing for court reform. Poetic justice, 'eh?

[USS Utah]

If I were in Snowdens place I don't know what I would have done differently.

Canada, the UK, France . . . anywhere but China or Russia.

[USS Utah]

How did such a narcissist with grandiose tendencies get elected in 2008 and 2012?

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and the economic meltdown in 2008.

The backlash against the backlash (2010) plus the GOP's alienation of minorities in 2012.

Six months later and I am seeing little evidence that conservatives understand that the GOP can't be the white male party anymore.

[Dawminator]

I don't want to get into a big argument with you, Dawminator, but what is it in the NSA program that you think is similar to what a police state like Belarus or even Russia would do? The NSA is not listening to random citizen's telephone conversations or reading their e-mail. As I understand the program, they are gathering data on who calls whom, especially outside the USA and in countries with known terrorist organizing activity. It's like keeping track of who sends 'snail mail" to whom, but not reading the contents of the mail. The Postal Service has been doing that for years and it is constitutional. Am I missing what the NSA is doing that bothers you?

I do think there is a trust issue, especially with this administration. But that's different from the actual program.

Fair questions LA. Let me try to answer as best I can. First, the USA is not Belarus or Russia. At least I hope it's not. I don't want to believe we are even close to that point. I think it is important to note that if there is a "conspiracy" to take more power away from the people it couldn't be done the same way here as it has been done in other countries. Americans are different. Freedom and liberty are so ingrained in our culture that the steps need to feel justified, or in other cases need to be much more hush-hush. I will list a few things that concern me, I will leave it up to you to see how I view these things as threatening.

In general I think governments tend to push the power envelope and naturally gravitate towards accumulating more power which results in abusing that power. I don't think our own government is any exception. I think and believe people should error on being too paranoid about the actions of their government. Now, having said that, let's look at some things in general that scare me.

1. Gun Control
2. Shutting down LDS Canneries (This comes after a story that said the FBI raided on cannery and demanded to see a patron's list...the source of the story later said he never said that happened....)
3. IRS agents "independently" targeting conservative groups.
4. The Patriot Act
5. Warrantless wiretapping under Bush
6. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
7. The NSA in general
8. Obama's birth certificate scandal...just kidding :TrainWreck1:

These things are enough to make me concerned with our government. I am sure I am missing others. I dont believe any of these things can be viewed in a vacuum. We are not Belarus or Russia yet, but don't think for one second that our "checks and balances" ensure we wont ever get there.

As an additional disclaimer, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not an Alex Jones or Glenn Beck follower. I used to listen to Glenn when I was a partisan Republican, but it has been several years. I believe in forming my own conclusions when I read the news and issues of the day.

[Dawminator]

This story also doesn't engender confidence in the process and oversight:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/305765-senators-skip-classified-briefing-on-nsa-snooping-to-catch-flights-home#ixzz2WHh6qpXb

A few gems:


The exodus of colleagues exasperated Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who spent a grueling week answering colleagues’ and media questions about the program.
“It’s hard to get this story out. Even now we have this big briefing — we’ve got Alexander, we’ve got the FBI, we’ve got the Justice Department, we have the FISA Court there, we have Clapper there — and people are leaving,” she said.


Lawmakers have been quick to call for increased congressional oversight of the phone and Internet monitoring programs, but many have been unwilling to skip flights or make other scheduling sacrifices to learn more of the secret details.


Lawmakers often vote to approve the intelligence programs with only a vague idea of what they’re authorizing. Feinstein says her colleagues should have known about the NSA programs from prior debates.

“We have discussed this, we have voted on this in committee, on the floor. People should go out and see how the program is set up, see how it’s conducted, ask questions, come to the briefings,” said Feinstein.


Many senators claimed they were never briefed on the NSA’s surveillance programs when the British newspaper The Guardian caused a media firestorm by reporting their existence earlier this month.


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the chief critics of the surveillance programs, was spotted leaving the briefing.


During the Reagan administration there was a fierce debate between administration officials and senators about whether Congress was informed about the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors.

Gary Schmitt, an AEI scholar who served as Democratic staff director on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1982 to 1984, said then-CIA director William Casey had told members of the committee about the covert action but couched it in such a way as to minimize notice.

“The mining was mentioned but it was mentioned in the context of a very long briefing that Casey was giving and it was done in passive voice and in such a way as to make it sound like an ongoing program,” he recalled. “It was a case of writing it in such a way as to obscure the fact that the agency was directly involved in the mining.”

It sounds like congress doesn't care about oversight. Not only that but they haven't cared for a long time if ever. This is exactly why these programs should not be tolerated at all. There are no checks and balances.

[pangloss]

Good, post. Good link. Makes me sick.

But I don't agree with your conclusion that 'these programs should not be tolerated at all'.

Assuming the reports are accurate, the New York subway suicide bomber plot was intercepted and prevented thanks to the phone meta-data program. I expect a number of other examples like that will be released soon. Again, assuming the reporting of these incidents is accurate and the programs helped prevent terrorist events then how can you support complete elimination.

There's an unavoidable trade-off we are forced to make. The laws passed after disclosure of the last administration's warrant-less tapping was a step in the right direction. But you are right, when Congress abrogates its job in the process the country is at risk.

How to get Congress to do their job and stop their full-time prostitution for money may be a more difficult problem than the intelligence community over-stepping its authority.



[QUOTE=Dawminator;16155]This story also doesn't engender confidence in the process and oversight:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/305765-senators-skip-classified-briefing-on-nsa-snooping-to-catch-flights-home#ixzz2WHh6qpXb

[Dawminator]

Good, post. Good link. Makes me sick.

But I don't agree with your conclusion that 'these programs should not be tolerated at all'.

Assuming the reports are accurate, the New York subway suicide bomber plot was intercepted and prevented thanks to the phone meta-data program. I expect a number of other examples like that will be released soon. Again, assuming the reporting of these incidents is accurate and the programs helped prevent terrorist events then how can you support complete elimination.

There's an unavoidable trade-off we are forced to make. The laws passed after disclosure of the last administration's warrant-less tapping was a step in the right direction. But you are right, when Congress abrogates its job in the process the country is at risk.

How to get Congress to do their job and stop their full-time prostitution for money may be a more difficult problem than the intelligence community over-stepping its authority.

I have also heard that while they did use the metadata for the Subway bomber, they also would have solved it using good old fashion police work:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/public-documents-contradict-claim-email-spying-foiled-terror

Also, your argument would be more compelling if it weren't for the revelations surrounding the two Boston bombers. The Russian's warned us these guys were bad. Told us not to take them. Their social media was full of jihadist crap. Yet we somehow missed them? How? Are we too reliant on the metadata? If it doesn't flag somebody, do we ignore other warnings that in the past may have been the actual basis for an investigation?

I am skeptical of the reports you mentioned. I wish I could say that I had full faith that these programs won't be abused. But they will. And they likely already are. And despite what congress claims I am leery of the assertion that but, for (sorry can you tell I am studying for the bar?) the existence of PRISM, the NYC Subway bomber would have killed hundreds, if not thousands of people.

[Uncle Ted]

One good thing that can come from all of this the increased adoption of technology such as strong encryption (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/13/expect-nsa-snooping-revelations-to-make)and onion routing (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/13/expect-nsa-snooping-revelations-to-make). In fact, it is hard to believe that everyone the NSA wants to spy on (e.g. terrorists, organized crime) is not already using point-to-point encryption to keep their secrets private. The apps are there for popular smartphones and computers.

[U-Ute]

I knew there would eventually be something outside of the Utes Garth and I can agree on. :)

This NSA business is an extremely dangerous slipperly slope. I think it is something we should all be concerned about...

For those who are not upset with it due to the FISC review, it would appear that they are nothing more than a rubber stamp court (epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) in that they've only rejected 11 of the nearly 34,000 requests. Those are rejection rates that even the bank forclosure courts are jealous of. Its interesting to note when they started approving reviews of American citizens.

If that doesn't bother you because you aren't doing anything wrong, keep in mind that you are probably committing 3 felonies every day (http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day) without even knowing it. Even if most of those are obscure and probably outdated laws, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking them, and if you suddenly become someone that the government is interested in, they can use it against you (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/jailed-qwest-ceo-claimed-that-nsa-retaliated-because-he-wouldnt-participate-in-spy-program/).

Lastly, I think that this Wired (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/) article brings up an interesting point that without the ability to break the law, we don't have a way of deciding which laws we should get rid of.

[GarthUte]

I knew there would eventually be something outside of the Utes Garth and I can agree on. :)

This NSA business is an extremely dangerous slipperly slope. I think it is something we should all be concerned about...

For those who are not upset with it due to the FISC review, it would appear that they are nothing more than a rubber stamp court (http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) in that they've only rejected 11 of the nearly 34,000 requests. Those are rejection rates that even the bank forclosure courts are jealous of. Its interesting to note when they started approving reviews of American citizens.

If that doesn't bother you because you aren't doing anything wrong, keep in mind that you are probably committing 3 felonies every day (http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day) without even knowing it. Even if most of those are obscure and probably outdated laws, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking them, and if you suddenly become someone that the government is interested in, they can use it against you (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/jailed-qwest-ceo-claimed-that-nsa-retaliated-because-he-wouldnt-participate-in-spy-program/).

Lastly, I think that this Wired (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/) article brings up an interesting point that without the ability to break the law, we don't have a way of deciding which laws we should get rid of.

:highfive:

[LA Ute]

Here's a balanced analysis by a leading libertarian:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/149766


When Balancing is Necessary

According to libertarian theory, the bedrock function of government is to put in place institutions that limit aggression in both domestic and foreign affairs. The question is: Are the means chosen reasonably adapted to the stated ends? Any effort to squelch all government abuse will result in a field day for terrorists and criminals. It is never easy to set the right balance of government power versus individual liberty given that we have to contend with two kinds of error—letting terrorists and criminals escape or infringing upon the rights of innocent individuals.


Most libertarians are deeply suspicious of balancing tests because they do not have the hard-edged quality of fixed rules. But unfortunately, balancing is all that we have when it comes to having the government respond to uncertain future events. The only issue is how best to balance. One type of balancing involves an open-ended “facts-and-circumstances” test that leaves a lot to the imagination. This is the kind of test long used to determine whether police have “probable cause” to issue an arrest or search warrant, or whether testimony elicited in some custodial interrogation is sufficiently “voluntary” to be admissible into evidence for some purposes within the criminal system.

i recommend reading the whole thing. We may find common ground in it!

[Diehard Ute]

I knew there would eventually be something outside of the Utes Garth and I can agree on. :)

This NSA business is an extremely dangerous slipperly slope. I think it is something we should all be concerned about...

For those who are not upset with it due to the FISC review, it would appear that they are nothing more than a rubber stamp court (epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) in that they've only rejected 11 of the nearly 34,000 requests. Those are rejection rates that even the bank forclosure courts are jealous of. Its interesting to note when they started approving reviews of American citizens.

If that doesn't bother you because you aren't doing anything wrong, keep in mind that you are probably committing 3 felonies every day (http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day) without even knowing it. Even if most of those are obscure and probably outdated laws, it doesn't change the fact that you are breaking them, and if you suddenly become someone that the government is interested in, they can use it against you (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/jailed-qwest-ceo-claimed-that-nsa-retaliated-because-he-wouldnt-participate-in-spy-program/).

Lastly, I think that this Wired (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/) article brings up an interesting point that without the ability to break the law, we don't have a way of deciding which laws we should get rid of.

Except that book is filled with errors. The first example he gives cites a woman serving felony time for violating the "Lacey Act". But her "Lacey Act" charges were all misdemeanors.

The second is Bobby Unser violating the wilderness act. Again it was a misdemeanor charge, which resulted in a $75 fine.

He has two more "hypotheticals" with no real world examples.

He then cites a lawyer who was charged with obstruction of justice for destroying a laptop that had child porn, saying the lawyer didn't know of the investigation thus he didn't commit a crime. He was actually charged with failing to report a felony, which is a valid and correct charge.

Those are about half the examples he cites on his website. Two are not felonies, two he has no actual cases to reference only hypotheticals, and the third a lawyer didn't report someone who had child porn.

Why should people be so worried again?

As for the NSA, I think there's more smoke than fire, as I keep hearing more about the program, the less actual data I'm seeing.

[LA Ute]

This one makes me worried:

Here’s How Edward Snowden Got ‘Top Secret’ Clearance (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/06/21/Heres-How-Edward-Snowden-Got-Top-Secret-Clearance.aspx#page1)

:blink: I am less concerned that the government is engaging in the surveillance than I am that they are doing it in such a sloppy manner. This is very disturbing.

For example:




87 percent of background checks are never fully completed. OPM uses the information it has to make a judgment on whether to approve these checks.
There are no uniform guidelines across the government for different levels of clearance. This means that top-secret clearance at one agency means something completely different at another.
Within each agency, there are no strict guidelines for determining security clearance.
USIS, a private contractor, conducts 65 percent of all U.S. government background checks.
USIS, which conducted a background check on Snowden, is now under investigation by OPM’s IG for failing to conduct (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/20/senator-firm-that-vetted-snowden-under-criminal-investigation/) proper background checks.
OPM has already paid USIS $200 million this year.
The $1-billion-dollar fund that OPM uses to pay for background checks has never been audited.
OPM’s IG said they have not been granted access to documentation on the fund.
Miller said the documentation did not exist.
Even if it did exist, OPM’s IG said he didn’t have the staff to audit the fund.
OPM’s IG was unable to answer the first two questions he was asked without extensive consultation with members of the audience.
One question was passed from one witness, then to another, who called someone named Stanley Sims out of the audience to answer it.
I didn’t catch Sims’ title, but he did say there are more than 10,000 private facilities in the United States that have security clearance.
Eighteen OPM investigators have been convicted of falsifying information contained in investigations they’ve conducted. Eleven work for OPM, while the other seven work for private contractors.
Forty other investigators are currently being investigated for falsifying background checks.
When asked if there are more than 40, IG McFarland said, “I believe there may be considerably more. I don't believe we've caught it all by any stretch.”
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asked Miller why OPM so heavily relied on contractors.
He answered because they were cheaper than hiring government workers.
She asked him for a cost-benefit analysis proving this.
He said there is no cost benefit analysis.
McCaskill again asked how he knew they were cheaper.
Because they are cheaper, Miller said.
“I'm tired of this assumption that contractors are cheaper. I just think it's easier,” McCaskill then said.



This needs to be fixed, and fast.

[LA Ute]

Just got this bulletin from the Wall Street Journal:


U.S. Prosecutors File Criminal Charges Against Snowden (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893504578560071189477346.html?m od=djemalertTECH)

U.S. prosecutors have filed criminal charges against National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, kicking off what is expected to be a lengthy process to have him returned to the U.S.

Mr. Snowden has said he leaked documents exposing NSA surveillance programs that he said he believed were overly intrusive. He is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong.
The criminal charges include espionage and theft of government property.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893504578560071189477346.html?m od=djemalertTECH

[LA Ute]

This seems relevant, somehow, to this thread.

Facebook admits year-long data breach exposed 6 million users (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/net-us-facebook-security-idUSBRE95K18Y20130621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637)

Looks like I picked the wrong year finally to become active on Facebook.

Will the Facebook stock price take a hit?

[concerned]

This seems relevant, somehow, to this thread.

Facebook admits year-long data breach exposed 6 million users (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/net-us-facebook-security-idUSBRE95K18Y20130621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637)

Looks like I picked the wrong year finally to become active on Facebook.


Will the Facebook stock price take a hit?

The stock price is going to take a hit with the news that you have finally become active. What could be more compelling evidence that facebook has become passe? Nobody teenager does facebook anymore; it is all instagram and vine.

[LA Ute]

The stock price is going to take a hit with the news that you have finally become active. What could be more compelling evidence that facebook has become passe? Nobody teenager does facebook anymore; it is all instagram and vine.

Kinda like iPhones. Shortly after I got one they were no longer cool.

[LA Ute]

I feel like we're back in the Cold War era. Snowden, that great American hero (;)) has left Hong Kong for Moscow, then Cuba, then Venezuela. Hong Kong lets him leave because of technical legal defects in the US extradition paperwork. Depressing.

[Dawminator]

I feel like we're back in the Cold War era. Snowden, that great American hero (;)) has left Hong Kong for Moscow, then Cuba, then Venezuela. Hong Kong lets him leave because of technical legal defects in the US extradition paperwork. Depressing.

It is truly depressing that he has to take refuge in some of the most corrupt governments around the world to hide from our own.

[Ma'ake]

It is truly depressing that he has to take refuge in some of the most corrupt governments around the world to hide from our own.

Snowden broke the law, and knew he'd have to go on the run. My sense is a majority of Americans will support the feds protecting us from the next 9-11 as the NSA reveals how they've thwarted actual plots.

It's easier for me to have this position now, because I'm a Democrat and I voted for Obama, I just don't see him as being a threat like I would have if somebody like Cheney was President. (Ie, I understand how people feel threatened by Obama. As Americans we trust government to act in our best interests, overall, and when the current occupant sees the world differently than you do, that trust is in shorter supply. Totally understandable.)

The Snowden case prompts a healthy debate, if nothing else. Maybe he can come home in 10 years after being pardoned by Hillary. (J/K)

[LA Ute]

This is an interesting piece by Ben Smith.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/you-dont-have-to-like-edward-snowden?s=mobile

I don't care if Snowden is a good guy or a bad guy (although I think he's at best a fool). I just don't like what he did and especially the way he did it.

[Ma'ake]

Reportedly headed for Ecuador or Venezuela for asylum. Caracas has a sky-high murder rate, Ecuador is known for crackdowns on the press and getting economic assistance from China.

If the reports are true that he provided information to the Chinese about NSA intelligence gathering on China, how much does Snowden retain his hero status among his advocates?

[Ma'ake]

Odds are that if he ends up in Ecuador, Snowden won't be leaking any anti-Ecuadorian government information to the press there. They just passed a law that regulates editorial content and gives the government power to sanction the press. Correa, the Ecuadorian President, refers to the press as "assassins with ink", and has prohibited his ministers from conducting interviews with non-government press.

Ecuador recently just scored a "partially free" status from the human rights group Freedom House.

"What's interesting is that even as Correa has created a safe space for foreigners like Assange -- and now possibly Snowden -- he doesn't do the same for dissenters within his own country."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-looking-to-ecuador-for-asylum/277139/

[pangloss]

Odds are that if he ends up in Ecuador, Snowden won't be leaking any anti-Ecuadorian government information to the press there. They just passed a law that regulates editorial content and gives the government power to sanction the press. Correa, the Ecuadorian President, refers to the press as "assassins with ink", and has prohibited his ministers from conducting interviews with non-government press.

Ecuador recently just scored a "partially free" status from the human rights group Freedom House.

"What's interesting is that even as Correa has created a safe space for foreigners like Assange -- and now possibly Snowden -- he doesn't do the same for dissenters within his own country."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-looking-to-ecuador-for-asylum/277139/


I think I heard this correctly, he got off the plane in Russia and was put in one car and his luggage in another. Presumably, whatever he had on the four PC's (heard that too, but couldn't find a reference) he stole from the NSA filled with secret data are now in the possession of the Russians. That assumes the Chinese didn't take it first.

China, Russia, Ecuador -- what an idiot.

[LA Ute]

I think I heard this correctly, he got off the plane in Russia and was put in one car and his luggage in another. Presumably, whatever he had on the four PC's (heard that too, but couldn't find a reference) he stole from the NSA filled with secret data are now in the possession of the Russians. That assumes the Chinese didn't take it first.

China, Russia, Ecuador -- what an idiot.

If - if - that's true doesn't this become a case of espionage?

[Dawminator]

China, Russia, Ecuador -- what an idiot.

As I have said before, what did you expect him to do? Other whistleblowers have said this was his only choice, otherwise there is no public discussion of it...which there needs to be.

It is one thing for China, Russia ( a country I love and no first hand to be corrupt), and Ecuador to spy on their citizens and limit the civil liberties of their people. They are bad places. But it is much worse for the USA to do it. I believe he is justified in fleeing to countries that are much worse then us, in order to bring to light the flaws and violations in our own system. I find no irony in it, but if I did I would find it ironic that he has to flee to such awful places to escape the unjustifiable wrath of a country that is supposed to be better than this.

Finally, I would never place myself in the position he did by working for the NSA in the first place, but if I did and I was going to blow the whistle I would have also taken information that countries like Russia would have had interest in obtaining as leverage to protect myself from extradition.

Ma'ake, I find it very troubling that you would have been much more outraged if Bush/Cheney were still in the White House, but you are largely indifferent about it because Obama is in charge. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that you can at least be honest about that unlike some others. The problem, as I see it, however is that if you give one party leverage to do these types of things, you can't then argue they are unconstitutional when people like Cheney are pulling some strings. It is either wrong for all or wrong for none and if you trust a democrat run government to do it, just remind yourself that if the law says its okay for them to do it, they are saying it is okay for Cheney to do it. It is better to just say no to both.

I will post this link again but if those of you who are critical of Snowden for what he did haven't read the transcript of this discussion I encourage you to do so now. These three whistleblowers all tried to follow the appropriate whistelblowing channels under the Bush Administration and it got them nowhere. They all said this was the only way to effectuate change.

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

[Ma'ake]

Ma'ake, I find it very troubling that you would have been much more outraged if Bush/Cheney were still in the White House, but you are largely indifferent about it because Obama is in charge. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that you can at least be honest about that unlike some others. The problem, as I see it, however is that if you give one party leverage to do these types of things, you can't then argue they are unconstitutional when people like Cheney are pulling some strings. It is either wrong for all or wrong for none and if you trust a democrat run government to do it, just remind yourself that if the law says its okay for them to do it, they are saying it is okay for Cheney to do it. It is better to just say no to both.

My point about differences in support whether the President is Democrat or Republican has to do with trust, and commonality in viewpoint. If Romney had been elected and Snowden revealed a bunch of secrets Republicans would be far less outraged at what the NSA has been monitoring, because they simply have more trust in Romney, believe he has their best interests at heart, etc. Because it is Obama and the mosaic of distrust portrayed about this administration has evolved to this point, the natural reaction is to think this is just the latest milestone on the way to Stalinism.

Regarding Snowden, it may be instructive to see the commonality in reaction between Senators of both parties, Feinstein and Schumer, and Coburn and Graham. These people rarely agree on anything, but they're all pretty emphatic that a lot of harm has been done to the United States. Combine this reaction with that of James Clapper, the head of intelligence, who said it makes him ill to think about the damage that has been done, and it seems either all these people are complicit in a conspiracy, begun by Bush, to implement some kind of tyrannical dictactorship...or what Snowden has done, while appearing as a whistle-blower on the surface, has actually done a substantial amount of harm to the US.

The tradeoffs between privacy at a personal level and transparency on a governmental level are interesting, and I sense quickly turn grey.

How transparent should the government be? If we find out that Snowden (somehow) gave the Russians and Chinese details about our nuclear weapons, including launch codes, that would certainly be transparent. Is that what we want?

I wasn't a fan of Bush. But my sense is that Obama, after becoming President, became aware of a lot of things regarding security that are pretty disturbing. Will Snowden advocates see things differently if/when the NSA and FBI outline in detail attacks that have been tharted?

[Ma'ake]

Working in IT, there's another aspect here that is troubling.

The next war we fight will likely have a large "Cyber" aspect to it. We've had a substantial lead in technology for quite a while - we invented the Internet and most of the technology advances in the past 40 years have been in the US domain.

Certainly the NSA is central to some (definintely most) of our best Cyber-espionage and Cyber-War capabilities. It's possible that Snowden, if he really has been travelling with four PCs of data, has done great damage to our technological capabilities, which will translate into giving some of our principal adversaries - or at least "frenemies" - insight into how we've gone about building up a strong Cyber capability. This is probably what's giving James Clapper a lot of insomnia.

To tell you how big the stakes are getting in Cyber-warfare, the NSA has been in the business of "buying" information about discovered security vulnerabilities for a few years now. It used to be that security vulnerabilities, like regular bugs, were encouraged to be reported to the various software companies as being the "right thing to do", along with some kind of financial reward for finding the bug. Now there is a very large - and growing - underground market for having the knowledge of security bugs, so that hackers and state entities can take advantage of them for national security reasons. The NSA has been "buying" vulnerability knowledge and swearing the discoverers to not share the info with anyone else. (Yeah, as an IT guy I'd rather know about security vulnerabilities so they can be patched and closed, but individual PC security is a lower priority than the growing push toward a Cyber-War. Our adversaries are doing it - we'd be stupid and naive to not be doing it as well.)

For example, the nasty virus "Stuxnet" from a few years ago is widely assumed to have been created by the Americans and/or Israelis specifically to wreak havoc with the nuclear centrifuges the Iranians have, which are based on equipment by Siemens, the German company. When Stuxtnet started flying around the Internet, it tripped some of the systems at the U, specifically hardware from Siemens. Later it came out that it was a "white hat" virus that effectively set back the Iranian nuclear program a few years. Stuxnet was based on at least a couple of undisclosed security vulnerabilities that allowed it to travel on USB thumb drives and eventually get the Iranian equipment.

For us to re-invent 40 years of Cyber-capability will be a massive task, maybe not realistic. This is somewhat like having somebody in the Manhattan project decide that everyone needed to know we were building an atomic bomb, and by the way, here are the details. It would have changed the outcome of World War II.

I realize this is a strong reaction, but I think the commonality and strenuous nature of reactions we're seeing from politicians fin both parties is revealing how big of a deal this is.

[Ma'ake]

If this latest news is accurate, Snowden has (essentially) admitted to being a spy. He took the job with Booz-Allen specifically to get the data.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-russia-cuba-flight-asylum-ecuador/2451403/

[Dawminator]

I surrender. You guys win.

[Ma'ake]

I surrender. You guys win.

Unfortunately, there's no win, here.

How transparent government is or should be are legitimate questions, but I think we have to trust the people we elected more than we're inclined to, naturally. I have to assume that Obama, Graham, McCain, Schumer and Feinstein have information that can't be made public.

How well our government represents us, and how well they function together is an open question, too, the topic of endless debate, conjecture, emotion, etc.

Sigh...

Fall camp can't get here soon enough. We need to be focusing on Utah State. Where's the blissful ignorance when you need it?

[Dawminator]

Unfortunately, there's no win, here.

How transparent government is or should be are legitimate questions, but I think we have to trust the people we elected more than we're inclined to, naturally. I have to assume that Obama, Graham, McCain, Schumer and Feinstein have information that can't be made public.

How well our government represents us, and how well they function together is an open question, too, the topic of endless debate, conjecture, emotion, etc.

Sigh...

Fall camp can't get here soon enough. We need to be focusing on Utah State. Where's the blissful ignorance when you need it?

I disagree, I think we should distrusting of anyone in government as a rule to protect us from corruption and abuse. Kind of like the ultimate check. I guess that is my underlining philosophy.

[Ma'ake]

I disagree, I think we should distrusting of anyone in government as a rule to protect us from corruption and abuse. Kind of like the ultimate check. I guess that is my underlining philosophy.

I hope you feel like you can express your opinion without fear of reprisal from the government. I do. We're fortunate that way.

If Snowden is truly a whistle-blower, I feel for him. If he's a spy, he probably won't do so well. He doesn't appear to be handling this well.

It looks like he gave the Chinese info in an attempt to get assylum in Hong Kong, and they decided he wasn't worth the trouble, and told him to leave. The Russians aren't really our friends, but they may not want to deal with him, either.

We recently had a case with Cuba where a couple of US parents kidnapped their own kids and then defected to Cuba, and the Cubans returned them. Venezuela is trying to get on better terms with us, and Ecuador is trying to get a tariff-free zone established with us, and 50% of their foreign trade is with the US. The President of Ecuador could suffer if we restrict trade with them.

Julian Assange is still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassay in London, though recently he's been working with a band from Puerto Rico on a song. That gig has got to be getting old.

I don't envy Snowden. If he surrenders it will be a long stay in a federal prison. That may be his best option, now. Maybe if he plays nice he could be pardoned in 10 years, or have his sentence commuted.

There's a lot of money to be made on a movie on this one. Probably even more than the Jodi Arias story. (Wow, that's bad.)

[GarthUte]

I disagree, I think we should distrusting of anyone in government as a rule to protect us from corruption and abuse. Kind of like the ultimate check. I guess that is my underlining philosophy.

I'm with you. History has shown that government is corrupt and the US government is not an exception. To hell with the feds, especially if they keep ignoring the Constitution.

Never say die.

[Sullyute]

History has shown that government is corrupt and the US government is not an exception.

I might have to agree with Garth on this. There is definitely a sliding scale of corruption, but I think the US is the least, or one of the least, corrupted governments out there.

I actually sided with Snowden originally as a whistle blower giving information to the media, but if he starts selling secrets to the other countries for benefits (assylum, money, etc) then that crosses the line to treason. I think that he should have stayed in the US and stood his ground legally on the statutes and ethics of whistleblowing. By running he makes himself look bad and loses the support of average Americans like me.

[Ma'ake]

I think Snowden might actually get a (relatively) fair shake if he came back to the US, given the level of distrust of government, here. I know a lot of other governments would just kill him and that would be the end of it.

It appears he's probably guilty of breaking the law, but if the Patriot Act were to be substantially modified, he could possibly get a pardon, or commutation, in the future.

Maybe this is a case of the pendulum swinging pretty far as a reaction to 9-11, and Americans are ready to take more risk again, in exchange for less government oversight and intrusion.

Of course, if the NSA has been able to prevent attacks, but if those attacks had actually occurred, people would be coming out of their chairs demanding better security. "The number one job of government is to protect us!"

Like a lot of things, finding the right balance is more art than science.

[Ma'ake]

Update: it looks like Julian Assange is calling the shots and paying for Snowden's travel. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/24/assange-helps-snowden-run/2452677/

How does this impact the thoughts of Snowden sympathizers? Is Assange seen as a true defender of freedom? Or an ego-centric anti-American crusader?

More info on Ecuador: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-24/ecuador-embrace-of-snowden-would-cement-correa-role-as-u-dot-s-dot-foe#p1

It seems Ecuador's President Correa sees himself as the heir apparent to Hugo Chavez as the number one enemy of the US in the Western Hemisphere, and though the US is their largest trading partner, they've been getting about 1/3 of their federal budget from China. (In that regard they're similar to us! Ha!) If we implemented trade sanctions on Ecuador, they may turn to China.

[LA Ute]

This seems a little overdone for me, but it is interesting (from Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt):


Ed Snowden has released another communiqué, through WikiLeaks (http://news.nationalreview.com/?VpZp.LGnZ2UksR0fculDHoQFsx54xalYV&http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow) . . . or at least that's what the group is claiming:


On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions. This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile....

These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has* been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised -- and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Ahem. Hey, Ed, you did (apparently) break the law and then run to Hong Kong. If you want to leave the country, the United States would take you back and let you make your case for your actions in a courtroom.

As for the asterisk, I'll let John Aravosis (http://news.nationalreview.com/?FFv1.iwxq2dksR2Mc2lDHoQgsxisOAl0F&http://americablog.com/2013/07/wikileaks-issues-odd-non-american-english-statement-from-snowden-in-moscow.html) explain:


The doubters are correct. The new "statement" from NSA leaker Edward Snowden, issued by Wikileaks, was not written by an American. So what happened to the real Edward Snowden, who reportedly sought to defect today to Russia (http://news.nationalreview.com/?VFv1.iGnv9VVsR2fcurDYGlgsn54xAl0V&http://americablog.com/2013/07/nsa-leaker-snowden-defects-to-russia.html)?

I've been saying for a while that Snowden would be lucky to leave Russia alive, if ever. There's no way Putin is going to let a counter-espionage gold mine like this young man out of Russia. I'm curious if Snowden even asked for asylum today, or whether he's now a prisoner.

What set off alarm bells for journalists was that Snowden's statement from Moscow, published by Wikileaks (http://news.nationalreview.com/?Fpv1.LGnJEV-pR0fvurDYGlFpx54xarYF&http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html), used a verb tense that an American would never use (emphasis

added) -- though a European would:

For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.

Note the use of the US as plural.

Second, the date at the bottom:

Monday 1st July 2013

That's a European way of writing the date -- putting the day before the month.

Americans write:

Monday, July 1, 2013

Even odder, Wikileaks has now apparently edited Snowden's statement in order to make it read more American -- they removed the plural and have now made it singular.

So if Snowden didn't write this, or was coached -- who's pulling the strings?

[Ma'ake]

It's amazing how much things change, yet remain (more or less) the same, after a week.

Snowden (apparently) is still holed up in the Moscow airport, Vladimir Putin, under some domestic political pressure to be sympathetic to Snowden, said the only way he'll consider granting him an asylum in Russia is if Snowden stops damaging "our partner, the United States, even though that may sound strange coming from me", which, I agree with Putin, is an extraordinary statement.

Ecuador appears to be bent out of shape at Julian Assange for at least appearing to call the shots and convincing the Ecuadorian consul in London to grant Snowden the document of passage from Hong Kong "erroneously", and Ecuadorian President Correa appears to have cooled dramatically to the idea of Snowden becoming the next Julian Assange, through a phone call from Biden, and Ecuadorians crapping bricks en masse at the prospect of losing trade status with the US market.

Now, today, Bolivian President Morales' jet was denied overflight rights by France and Italy on his flight back home from Moscow because it was rumored that Snowden might be on board, because the Morales replied "sure, why not?" to the question of whether he might grant him asylum. This seems to indicate the damage done by Snowden's revelation that the US has been spying on the EU is well on its way to being healed.

I feel badly for Snowden. It would seem he's going to be a real life example of the Tom Hanks character in the movie "Terminal", where Hanks spends years stuck in diplomatic limbo in an airport. (I read another article that the record for being stuck in an airport is a guy who spent SIXTEEN YEARS stuck in an airport because of a foul up in his refuge status and a lot of nations refusing to take him in. That just seems completely unfathomable. I shall never again complain about being bounced from flights as a standby passenger in the US.)

Anyway, according to the NYT, Snowden's options have dwindled to Venezuela and Bolivia, which, if I had to bet, means that Putin will wait some time longer for his domestic pressure to subside, and then he'll kick him out and send him back to the US.

All of this seems lost on Snowden, who apparently is issuing new threats of information he's going to release. Even his own father's attorney said "he's not doing his cause any favors".

What I don't fully understand from the "information libertarians" like Snowden and Daniel Manning, and the Schwartz guy who took himself out before going to trial, is exactly how they reconcile the dueling concepts of complete individual privacy, with perfect governmental transparency.

Beyond the question of whether this means that nuclear powers like the US should reveal their launch codes on the Internet (if you're a purist in this mindset), does it mean there is no personal privacy if you happen to work for the government? The problem with black and white thinking is that this nasty thing called "grey" that life throws at us very quickly gets in the way, at least in my experience.

I think the best thing would be if Snowden came back and stood trial, prompting a fuller debate on how much security we're getting for the liberty lost, and so on.

At this point I think maybe only Julian Assange, or his ex-lover Sarah Harrison, who is Snowden's traveling companion, could convince him to come back home, and they're definitely not going to do it, so it will probably come down to Putin kicking him out of Moscow.

[Diehard Ute]

Beyond the question of whether this means that nuclear powers like the US should reveal their launch codes on the Internet (if you're a purist in this mindset), does it mean there is no personal privacy if you happen to work for the government?

We're actually seeing that.

Courts are allowing personal social media to be used against police officers in some states.

There have been instances of personal cell phones being confiscated with subpoenas because they've been used for work business

Especially for first responders the line between personal and professional life is eroding more and more

[Ma'ake]

This seems a little overdone for me, but it is interesting (from Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt):

It reads like Assange speaks, to me.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Ecuadorians decided to move their embassy in London to a different flat, telling Julian, "hey, we don't know how you're going to walk from this embassy to the new one, but you're on your own, and these bobbies outside can probably run faster than you, Mr. 40-year-old-with-no-access-to-aerobic-exercise-opportunities. It's probably time you go to Sweden to face the music on whatever sexcapade you had there a couple of years ago".

Meanwhile, the marketing people at Ringling Brothers are either disconsolate at their being completely blasted out of the water in the circus entertainment market, or they're wondering how their marketing plans were stolen.

[U-Ute]

Who is Edward Snowden?

One attempt to dig up his story...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

[LA Ute]

This is interesting, among other things.

What Gmail Knows About You (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/what-gmail-knows-about-you/277578/)

[Ma'ake]

One of Snowden's advocates in the media, Glenn Greenwald, says Snowden "has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States".

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/14/snowden-chose-not-to-release-most-damaging-data/

Is this a good thing? I have a coworker who feels the government should be completely transparent, and release all the information about security threats, as they receive it. I told him that might make a lot of people bunker into their homes and the economy would probably tank.

I think there are folks on both the far left and far right who think it's time for another revolution, that we need to overthrow our tyrannical government and start over. I think it's safe to say a lot of America's enemies feel the same way, for perhaps different reasons. The Kremlin and Beijing would probably supply weapons to Americans intent on violent overthrow of the US Government, without a doubt.

Do we need to overhaul the US, and perhaps break up into smaller nations of more cohesive peoples? Is that what the far right folks here would like to see? I know there has been talk of secession, and nullification, and much of the same phraseology from the Civil War. Our nation seems quite divided politically, perhaps dysfunctionality beyond the point of recovery.

[LA Ute]

Snowden applies for temporary asylum in Russia

Los Angeles Times | July 16, 2013 | 8:29 AM


Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden officially applied for temporary asylum in Russia today, his attorney and the Wikileaks organization announced.

The application is for temporary refuge, not permanent political asylum, according to human rights activists familiar with his case.

For the latest information go to www.latimes.com (http://e.latimes.com/a/hBR5WcTB8hLWGB8z6zbAAAqAULA/exmp1).

[LA Ute]

The Snowden kid is no hero.

http://www.businessinsider.com/body-language-expert-analyzes-snowdens-nbc-interview-2014-5

[Viking]

The Snowden kid is no hero.

http://www.businessinsider.com/body-language-expert-analyzes-snowdens-nbc-interview-2014-5

That may be true. Maybe not. I don't know.

What is certain is our rights are being abrogated and no one seems to care. That's horrific.