Snowden 2.0

[cubby]

You missed my question. Are US Citizens who spy on the US Government traitors?

Nope, didn't miss it. Just found it irrelevant to the discussion. To answer your question now: it depends.

[Jinxz]

Just so we're all clear, Snowden is a 100% traitor.

I'll take snowden over the corrupt government/officials we have any day.

[cuafpr]

great another traitor hope we get this one before he gets away....

[cubby]

great another traitor hope we get this one before he gets away....

Same here. It's unbelievable that Snowden has even one person who "believes" in him. I find those people typically have no idea what damage he has done to the United States and the world as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll take snowden over the corrupt government/officials we have any day.

Well, ignorance is a choice. I'm just glad you're not in charge of anything to do with our national security.

[Deleted]

Just so we're all clear, Snowden is a 100% traitor.

Just so we're all clear, so were the Founding Fathers.

Thanks to them, who history now calls "patriots" by the way, there you are, whining and bitching about someone who's fighting a corrupt government to defend your freedoms, and thanks to him, the future is just a little bit brighter.

[cubby]

Just so we're all clear, so were the Founding Fathers.

Thanks to them, who history now calls "patriots" by the way, there you are, whining and bitching about someone who's fighting a corrupt government to defend your freedoms, and thanks to him, the future is just a little bit brighter.

I am also glad you're not in charge of analogies, because this one just sucks donkey ass.

[Deleted]

I am also glad you're not in charge of analogies. Wow, this one just sucks donkey ass.

I think you should check the definition of an analogy in a dictionary, because I didn't make one.

[cubby]

I think you should check the definition of an analogy in a dictionary, because I didn't make one.

Well, yeah, you did. You gave an similar example between two things (Snowden and the founding fathers). Unfortunately, Snowden, aside from being human, has nothing in common with our founding fathers.

Perhaps you should check a dictionary once in awhile.

(in before grammar nazi avoids the real discussion in favor of a complicated chat about what exactly constitutes an analogy)

[oxymoronic]

You missed my question. Are US Citizens who spy on the US Government traitors?

depends on their leveling of "spying"... i keep good track of my postal worker and trash men, well the time they come and sometimes i watch them!

[Deleted]

Unfortunately, Snowden, aside from being human, has nothing in common with our founding fathers.

Your Founding Fathers were considered traitors. You consider Snowden a traitor. Also, I wasn't making an analogy. I was stating a fact. If you found an "analogy" within that fact, good for you.

I guess anyone fleeing the oppressive government of North Korea is a traitor too, then? Oh, and just to Godwin the conversation... All the Jews who were killed by the Nazis; someone might think it's insulting for you to consider them traitors as well.

A little man having a little thought in his little head does not a traitor out of someone make. Congratulations, you made the list.

[ringpriest]

Same here. It's unbelievable that Snowden the NSA has even one person who "believes" in him it. I find those people typically have no idea what damage he "intelligence" has done to the United States and the world as a whole.

FIFY. There are plenty of clearly demonstratable harms resulting from the intel communities post-9/11 actions (there are some linked in my .sig file). Can you point to actual evidence that NSA leaks have harmed US national security? (Baseless whining from the intel community and their hangers-on does not count. And Bruce Schneier has already countered the "terrorists changed their communications!" claim.)

[cubby]

Your Founding Fathers were considered traitors. You consider Snowden a traitor. Also, I wasn't making an analogy. I was stating a fact. If you found an "analogy" within that fact, good for you.

Lol, angry much? The Founding Fathers were considered traitors, but they were not in the end (see history, logic, common sense). Snowden is a traitor. Very simple. Thought you'd get it the first few times, I guess we here just have to keep spelling it out for you. It's ok though - if you don't understand something else, just ask. We're here for you.

A little man having a little thought in his little head does not a traitor out of someone make. .

No, no, I'm not saying you're a traitor - and your thoughts aren't entirely little. You should be nicer to yourself. Someone has to.

- - - Updated - - -

FIFY. There are plenty of clearly demonstratable harms resulting from the intel communities post-9/11 actions (there are some linked in my .sig file). Can you point to actual evidence that NSA leaks have harmed US national security? (Baseless whining from the intel community and their hangers-on does not count. And Bruce Schneier has already countered the "terrorists changed their communications!" claim.)

I don't think you read the article you cited. One firm says absolutely. Schneier says "not as concrete". Which is not what you claim he said.

Remember: read the articles you link. The embarrassment you save could be your own!

[bufferunderrun]

Because the military tests that everyone still thinks were some alien crap aren't infringing on our rights. Leaking military research = espionage/treason. Leaking constitutional infringements = whistleblowing.

or maybe that guy isn't an incompetent nsa dude and know how to hide secrets

[cubby]

Because the military tests that everyone still thinks were some alien crap aren't infringing on our rights. Leaking military research = espionage/treason. Leaking constitutional infringements = whistleblowing.

Lol, um, no. Your definition of treason is completely incorrect.

[Deleted]

Lol, um, no. Your definition of treason is completely incorrect.

United States Constitution Article III Section 3:
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.'

Snowden is helping U.S. citizens, not levying war against the United States.

[Deleted]

The Founding Fathers were considered traitors, but they were not in the end (see history, logic, common sense). Snowden is a traitor. Very simple.

Have we reached "the end" with Snowden though? I dont think so.

[cubby]

United States Constitution Article III Section 3:
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.'

Snowden is helping U.S. citizens, not levying war against the United States.

Wow, some day you can invite people to the world you live in. Anyone else want a shot at how many things are wrong in his post? Anyone? Bueller? Alrighty thennnn . . .

First, the Constitution isn't the final definition of treason, just fyi. Google the phrase "case law" and then come back to us. Second, Snowden released documents and information to foreign countries and/or people who were not cleared to see those documents. That's a violation of the National Security Act, a document he signed, and it's the very definition of the modern form of United States treasonous acts. Finally, he has given away significant "methods" of gathering intelligence to foreign governments and agencies, and that is another huge violation of the agreements he signed.

He's not a whistleblower. He's a traitor.

[ringpriest]

I don't think you read the article you cited. One firm says absolutely. Schneier says "not as concrete". Which is not what you claim he said.

Remember: read the articles you link. The embarrassment you save could be your own!

The "one firm" is Recorded Future. "Recorded Future was initially founded in 2010 with funding of less than $10 million each from Google Ventures and CIA/NSA venture capital arm In-Q-Tel". I'm sure they're really impartial. Not.

The full text regarding Schneier on Snowden and terrorist communication, from the article:

Others, however, weren't as convinced. Bruce Schneier of Harvard's Berkman Center acknowledged that changes have been made, but the connection to Snowden isn't necessarily concrete.

"Certainly they have made changes," he told NPR, "but is that because of the normal costs of software development or because they thought rightly or wrongly that they were being targeted?"

Regardless, Schneier said it's unlikely the NSA won't be able to keep spying on Al-Qaeda.

"It is relatively easy to find vulnerabilities in software," he said. "This is why cybercriminals do so well stealing our credit cards. And it is also going to be why intelligence agencies are going to be able to break whatever software these al-Qaeda operatives are using."

To sum up: no damage. It does you no good to read, if you're incapable of comprehending what's been written.
In the meantime, since you seem to be trying to avoid acknowledging the very real damage done by the NSA (and other branches of the intelligence community) in favor of smearing the messenger: You Can Thank The CIA For The Return Of Polio, Even Though The Media Conveniently Ignores This, and economic damage from the NSA's actions is now up to an estimated $150 billion, along with continuing damage to America's foreign policy goals and global cyber-security.

Why don't any of Snowden's critics ever seem concerned about "traitors" in the executive branch (under both Bush & Obama) responsible for all this?

[cubby]

The "one firm" is Recorded Future. "Recorded Future was initially founded in 2010 with funding of less than $10 million each from Google Ventures and CIA/NSA venture capital arm In-Q-Tel". I'm sure they're really impartial. Not.

Then find another source that contradicts it.

And what's really great is that how can anyone expect any kind of objective discussion from you about the NSA? Have you read your signature lately? It would be impossible to continue this conversation with your on this subject. You're just too biased.

[ringpriest]

Then find another source that contradicts it.

I already did. Bruce Schneier, the most respected independent cryptographer on the planet, doesn't agree with NSA-front company Recorded Futures. But to add to that..
NPR’s Story Saying ‘Snowden Tipped Off Terrorists’ Isn’t True

So, we’re expected to believe that despite making almost no changes to their software over seven years, suddenly terrorist hackers were able to whip up a new software and encryption package that supported not just Windows but multiple platforms including both Macintosh and various mobile phone platforms. After seven years of doing nothing, suddenly the terrorist hacker community has discovered advanced open source software that they can use for secure communications? All of this, in two months?

No, that’s ridiculous. Anyone familiar with software development on any level will look at this and immediately know that these terrorist hackers must have been working on it long before the two months “Recorded Future” asserts it took to develop. It’s unproveable and illogical nonsense from a company that very likely is seeking to attain or maintain government contracts. It’s auditioning and advertising.

In reality, Al Quadea and related organizations have been improving their crypto capabilities for a long time, including releasing a new encrypted messaging tool months before Snowden's leaks began.

And what's really great is that how can anyone expect any kind of objective discussion from you about the NSA? Have you read your signature lately? It would be impossible to continue this conversation with your on this subject. You're just too biased.

This is rich, coming from someone who has pretended the misdeeds of the NSA (and the CIA) just don't exist. What hypothetical "objective discussion" are you talking about? You've repeatedly ignored clear evidence of wrongdoing exposed by Snowden, and the very real, very obvious damage to the US that's come about as a result of the NSA's actions, in favor of trying to shoot the messenger. Pay no attention to the Man Behind the Curtain, indeed.