Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks

[Laize]

No, I seriously don't fucking have a problem with the government storing the exact same data as corporations when they give it to the government.

Except these corporations are under court order to do so. If they refuse they're slapped with FISC subpoenas they're not allowed to talk about.

Furthermore, none of the information companies collect is TAKEN from you. The information from ISPs and such is necessary to the functioning of the ISP and is, then, taken by the government.

[Naxere]

And I'm telling you they should need warrant to collect it... not just use it. To me this is the same thing as if they went into my house with a duffel bag and closed their eyes as they swept everything I owned into it. Then they went to a judge and said "I have this stuff, can I have a warrant to look at it?"

You seriously have no problem with this?

I don't understand these "Liberals" that are ok with massive government surveillance, the heavy-handed prosecution of whistleblowers, and the increased use of drone strikes in nations we're not at war with.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

On Thursday, the Parliament of the European Union has voted in favor of suspending two US – EU agreements on granting the United States access to European financial and travel data, unless the US-Administration comes clean about the full scale of US Spying activities in Europe.

[...]

The Data Sharing Agreements to be suspended are, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, TFTP, and the Passenger Name Records, PNR. Both agreements were signed shortly after the events on September the 11th, 2001. Both agreements have ever since been criticized by European civil rights watchdogs and lawyers, for giving the United States too much unwarranted information about the private affairs of EU citizens.

The TFTP provided the United States Treasury Department with access to data on international financial transfers in Europe. The PNR data include all names of all passengers travelling within the EU, from or to the EU, as well as passengers in transit through any EU member state. The information is made accessible for the United States Department of Homeland Security.

[...]

The resolution was adopted by 483-98 votes with 65 abstentions.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/07/05/eu-parlia...s-comes-clean/

[Rukentuts]

Except these corporations are under court order to do so. If they refuse they're slapped with FISC subpoenas they're not allowed to talk about.

Link me a source.

I don't understand these "Liberals" that are ok with massive government surveillance, the heavy-handed prosecution of whistleblowers, and the increased use of drone strikes in nations we're not at war with.

I see the top conservatives in Congress backing this program as well. I also don't see how the government storing my information in a massive database just like my carrier violates my freedoms in any way.

Some people are just too paranoid I guess. The big bad gubmint is out to get you.

[Laize]

I don't understand these "Liberals" that are ok with massive government surveillance, the heavy-handed prosecution of whistleblowers, and the increased use of drone strikes in nations we're not at war with.

I imagine if I were to point out the similarities between the NSA and the Stasi it would simply be hand-waved away with "they need a warrant to use it!"

You know... never mind the fact that these warrants are issued by a shadow court with absolutely zero transparency, little (if any) oversight and the number of warrant requests it has rejected since 1980 can be counted on one hand.

[Rukentuts]

You know... never mind the fact that these warrants are issued by a shadow court with absolutely zero transparency, little (if any) oversight and the number of warrant requests it has rejected since 1980 can be counted on one hand.

Grab that tin foil.

[Naxere]

I see the top conservatives in Congress backing this program as well. I also don't see how the government storing my information in a massive database just like my carrier violates my freedoms in any way.

Good to know that you and Dick Cheney agree on this issue. All must bow in the name of the "War on Terror" I suppose.

[Rukentuts]

Good to know that you and Dick Cheney agree on this issue. All must bow in the name of the "War on Terror" I suppose.

Apparently "in Congress" went wooosh.

[Laize]

Link me a source.

Oh please... these companies aren't even allowed to report the number of requests for data that they get. In other words, the only source you have aside from the companies themselves is going to be another Snowden.

[Rukentuts]

Oh please... these companies aren't even allowed to report the number of requests for data that they get. In other words, the only source you have aside from the companies themselves is going to be another Snowden.

I'll wait until then rather that cater to unfounded tinfoilhattery.

[Laize]

Grab that tin foil.

There is not a single part of my statement that is incorrect.

The FISC is as transparent as lead.

Since its inception it has issued almost 34,000 warrants and denied 11. In case you can't math good, that's a rejection rate if .03%. The NSA is either the greatest executive agency the planet has ever seen... or there should be some sort of audit.

Lastly, their only oversight criticizes the court's unnecessary level of secrecy.

[Naxere]

Apparently "in Congress" went wooosh.

Nope. The Republicans that support this are just as bad as the Democrats in my opinion.

[Rukentuts]

There is not a single part of my statement that is incorrect.

The FISC is as transparent as lead.

Yes, but your conclusions are based on several kilos of tin foil and nothing more.

[Laize]

I'll wait until then rather that cater to unfounded tinfoilhattery.

So let me get this straight. Google wants to prove it wasn't going along willingly... to do that, all it needs to report is the NUMBER of requests they've gotten. The NSA won't let them report that number so you're saying "Well obviously they're complicit"?

Sounds like you're simply convicting them in the court of public opinion rather than presuming innocence.

I will never understand people who give the government the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they prove themselves unworthy of trust almost as a matter of course.

[Rukentuts]

I will never understand people who give the government the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they prove themselves unworthy of trust almost as a matter of course.

I will never understand people who jump to paranoid conclusions without evidence of civil suppression.

[Laize]

Yes, but your conclusions are based on several kilos of tin foil and nothing more.

You possess absolutely zero skepticism of the government. You are wholly accepting of a lack of oversight and would sooner presume the government innocent of wrongdoing than the individuals therein. All this despite the fact that they're refusing to release any information that could implicate them in said wrongdoing.

They are, in effect, covered in blood standing in front of a rolled up carpet and refusing to let us look inside. And you stand with them saying "Prove they're guilty of murder... but do it WITHOUT looking in the carpet." And the one dude who HAS looked in the carpet you're attempting to denounce.

The Stasi would consider you very useful.

[Rukentuts]

You possess absolutely zero skepticism of the government. You are wholly accepting of a lack of oversight and would sooner presume the government innocent of wrongdoing than the individuals therein. All this despite the fact that they're refusing to release any information that could implicate them in said wrongdoing.

Translation: I'm not subscribing to your paranoia without proof of civil suppression.

You can continue with your regularly scheduled false equivalencies now.

[Laize]

Translation: I'm not subscribing to your paranoia without proof of civil suppression.

You can continue with your regularly scheduled false equivalencies now.

Okay so you don't see a problem with this until there is actual evidence of civil suppression? Okay let's ignore the fact that by the time there exists obvious evidence of suppression it will be too late to change anything.

What, would you say, are the characteristics of suppression? Maybe revoking the passports of whistleblowers in spite of campaign promises to protect them? Or maybe you'd attempt to block their petitions to receive asylum in other nations. Maybe you'd do all of this to intimidate anyone who'd follow in their footsteps? Or would that intimidation just be a happy coincidence you'd never considered as you pursued what you called a criminal?

[Reeve]

I don't understand these "Liberals" that are ok with massive government surveillance, the heavy-handed prosecution of whistleblowers, and the increased use of drone strikes in nations we're not at war with.

Don't apply that paint to all liberals, Erenax. I have a huge issue with the surveillance.

- - - Updated - - -

Link me a source.

Read the Verizon subpoena Snowden linked. It's all written there in black and white, exactly as Laize said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[Naxere]

Don't apply that paint to all liberals, Erenax. I have a huge issue with the surveillance.

Which is why I used the quotes. It's a distinction (to me) of real Liberals vs. simply Obama supporters.