Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Any society that would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

I'll fuck my sister. - Some Founding Father

[Sole-Warrior]

Hes been trying to trade the information he has for political asylum. That is the benefit, not going to jail. Just because your loss is greater than what you get doesnt mean you dont benefit from the information.

Also like I said, international spying isnt illegal, every country does it to every other country. If it was some great injustice these countries would come together and make it against international law but they wont because they want to be able to do it and think they can handle preventing it on their own.

He reportedly has 4 or so laptops full of stuff he stole from the NSA and might have given something to the Chinese so that they would not arrest him in Honk Kong. He probably also offered stuff to Russia but Putin said he couldnt release any more classified documents if he wanted to stay in Russia.

Hey may have offered stuff to the Russians that would put Americans at risk, but until evidence turns out, can't really call him a traitor.
And he MIGHT have given something to the Chinese so they won't arrest him. So far no evidence I have heard of has turned out so for both these cases you will need to provide me a link. sources so we can see what information you are talking about. So far NOTHING leaked remotely harms anyone, except the reputation of the American Government cause Americans are disappointed and displeased with what the NSA and PRISM have been doing.

Spying between countries isn't against the law, but knowing that our government is doing industrial espionage on our closest allies is a surprise. Seizing 121 million American phone records without a specific warrant for a specific person is a surprise and violation of the 4th amendment.

[Olo]

Hey may have offered stuff to the Russians that would put Americans at risk, but until evidence turns out, can't really call him a traitor.
And he MIGHT have given something to the Chinese so they won't arrest him. So far no evidence I have heard of has turned out so for both these cases you will need to provide me a link. sources so we can see what information you are talking about. So far NOTHING leaked remotely harms anyone, except the reputation of the American Government cause Americans are disappointed and displeased with what the NSA and PRISM have been doing.

Spying between countries isn't against the law, but knowing that our government is doing industrial espionage on our closest allies is a surprise. Seizing 121 million American phone records without a specific warrant for a specific person is a surprise and violation of the 4th amendment.

He's leaked details of espionage programs aimed at other countries including russia and china and there has been no indication of industrial espionage.

And the supreme court has already ruled phone records belong to the telecom companies and don't get 4th amendment protections.

[ringpriest]

Hes been trying to trade the information he has for political asylum. That is the benefit, not going to jail. Just because your loss is greater than what you get doesnt mean you dont benefit from the information.

Also like I said, international spying isnt illegal, every country does it to every other country. If it was some great injustice these countries would come together and make it against international law but they wont because they want to be able to do it and think they can handle preventing it on their own.

He reportedly has 4 or so laptops full of stuff he stole from the NSA and might have given something to the Chinese so that they would not arrest him in Honk Kong. He probably also offered stuff to Russia but Putin said he couldnt release any more classified documents if he wanted to stay in Russia.

Evidence, please. Otherwise you're just one more in a long line of idiots more interested in the character assassination of one IT guy, than the massive, secret, unconstitutional, illegal domestic spying the government has been conducting and lying about.

[Skroe]

News agencies are reporting that Snowden burned through almost all his savings at the airport.

[Yadryonych]

Evidence, please. Otherwise you're just one more in a long line of idiots more interested in the character assassination of one IT guy, than the massive, secret, unconstitutional, illegal domestic spying the government has been conducting and lying about.

Mr. Snowden's asylum has costed us an one beautifull space rocket, what crashed down in a live stream in a sabotaged launch to be ashamed in the face of all the world as an unofficial act of vengeance and warning, so mr. Snowden are to give something in exchange of all this

[Rukentuts]

than the massive, secret, unconstitutional, illegal domestic spying the government has been conducting

What court do you preside over?

[Skroe]

Evidence, please. Otherwise you're just one more in a long line of idiots more interested in the character assassination of one IT guy, than the massive, secret, unconstitutional, illegal domestic spying the government has been conducting and lying about.

It's not unconstitutional or illegal.

Try again.

Also secret =/= bad.

[Deleted]

I dont think this is enough, he needs to be rewarded much better instead of exiled and being forced to live in fear in a foreign country for the rest of hes life. Even if we never get him, it's still a cautionary tale for the future "Snowdens", not an inspirational one. Revealing criminal and unconstitutional activities of the government doesnt make anyone a traitor so Im kinda hoping Russian would glorify hes deeds somehow, reward him.. make him a celebrity.. anything that would encourage more people to reveal nasty secrets like that.

[Skroe]

I dont think this is enough, he needs to be rewarded much better instead of exiled and being forced to live in fear in a foreign country for the rest of hes life. Even if we never get him, it's still a cautionary tale for the future "Snowdens", not an inspirational one. Revealing criminal and unconstitutional activities of the government doesnt make anyone a traitor so Im kinda hoping Russian would glorify hes deeds somehow, reward him.. make him a celebrity.. anything that would encourage more people to reveal nasty secrets like that.

It's not criminal or unconstitutional, though.....................................or nasty.

Seriously. Like this shit is THE WORST. How can we have an honest conversation when people can't even be intellectually honest enough to admit all this NSA stuff is neither criminal or unconstitutional! It's hilarious.

I'm just going to throw this out there. We've proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread, at least twice, maybe three times, the legality and constitutional nature of the programs. We've linked articles and position papers from reputable sources, to that effect.

The OPINION on these activities being criminal or unconstitutional have no ground. There has been nothing legitimate offered to that effect other than opinion. Anyone who claims they are is (a) completely full of shit at this point (b) lying to themselves and (c) lying to others, because I truly do not understand how 102 pages and 2 months in with MOUNTAINS said about how these programs are secretive and have some flaws in them to be sure (should FISA court be more stringent?) the constitutionality and legality of them is BEYOND question.

You don't like them? Overturn the laws. But the only people pretending they are unconstitutional and illegal are yourselves, and it has no factual basis. As a result it won't be used to end them. You can continue to exist in your own fictional universes where they are that. But in the reality based community, PRISM and XKeyscore is as legal and constitutional as Speed Limit laws.

Enjoy reality.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

It's not criminal or unconstitutional, though.....................................or nasty.

The government has made it lawful. Doesn't mean it's actually going to be taken seriously.

[Deleted]

It's not criminal or unconstitutional, though.....................................or nasty.

You think spying on its own citizens is ok then? Last time I checked,the right for privacy was still a constitutional right..

[ringpriest]

News agencies are reporting that Snowden burned through almost all his savings at the airport.

A Google News search doesn't bring up any such reports, nor does a quick trawl of Drudge. Any chance of a link for that? Something like this one: Snowden Already Has a Job Offer from Russia's Facebook

Normally, I wouldn't ask, but you seem to have a habit of making claims of fact without substance or support. For example, I'm still waiting to see a link to support your claim that, "The PRISM legislation was passed and funded by both houses of congress."

[Rukentuts]

You think spying on its own citizens is ok then?

Yes, I do. And I think with all the closed circuit cameras in public it happens a lot more than you think.

[ringpriest]

It's not criminal or unconstitutional, though.....................................or nasty.

Seriously. Like this shit is THE WORST. How can we have an honest conversation when people can't even be intellectually honest enough to admit all this NSA stuff is neither criminal or unconstitutional! It's hilarious.

I'm just going to throw this out there. We've proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread, at least twice, maybe three times, the legality and constitutional nature of the programs. We've linked articles and position papers from reputable sources, to that effect.

No, you bloody well haven't. You've been asked to do so repeatedly, in this thread and others. And then you quiet down for a couple days before popping back up and making the exact same baseless assertions.

[Kellhound]

I dont think this is enough, he needs to be rewarded much better instead of exiled and being forced to live in fear in a foreign country for the rest of hes life. Even if we never get him, it's still a cautionary tale for the future "Snowdens", not an inspirational one. Revealing criminal and unconstitutional activities of the government doesnt make anyone a traitor so Im kinda hoping Russian would glorify hes deeds somehow, reward him.. make him a celebrity.. anything that would encourage more people to reveal nasty secrets like that.

The damage caused by the leak exceeds the the benefit. Americans given up far more personal information without a second thought to companies who profit from said information on a daily basis. However, I will admit I am not particularly happy with the NSA doing domestic intelligence, that should have been handled by the FBI.

[Skroe]

You think spying on its own citizens is ok then? Last time I checked,the right for privacy was still a constitutional right..

There is no constitutional right to privacy. Only an implicit one.

http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

I'll even quote it for you since you probably won't read it. I'll bold the salient parts too

The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections.

The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law. For example, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects a person's health information, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the right to privacy in various privacy policies and privacy statements.

The right to privacy often must be balanced against the state's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life. Seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet requirements are examples of such laws. And while many Americans are quite aware that the government collects personal information, most say that government surveillance is acceptable.

Constitutional rights
The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Access to personal information
A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used. In the marketplace, the FTC enforces this right through laws intended to prevent deceptive practices and unfair competition.

The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government. A person has the right to review their own personal information, ask for corrections and be informed of any disclosures. (note: FISA courts make secret challenges to this legal)

The Financial Monetization Act of 1999 requires financial institutions to provide customers with a privacy policy that explains what kind of information is being collected and how it is being used. Financial institutions are also required to have safeguards that protect the information they collect from customers.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act protects personal financial information collected by credit reporting agencies. The act puts limits on who can access such information and requires agencies to have simple processes by which consumers can get their information, review it and make corrections.

Online privacy
Internet users can protect their privacy by taking actions that prevent the collection of information. Most people who use the Internet are familiar with tracking cookies. These small stores of data keep a log of your online activities and reports back to the tracker host. The information is usually for marketing purposes. To many Internet users, this is an invasion of privacy. But there are several ways to avoid tracking cookies.

Browsers and social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, allow users to choose levels of privacy settings, from share everything to only share with friends to share only the minimum, such as your name, gender and profile picture. Protecting personally identifiable information is important for preventing identity theft.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) enforces a parent's right to control what information websites collect about their children. Websites that target children younger than 13 or knowingly collect information from children must post privacy policies, get parental consent before collecting information from children, allow parents to decide how such information is used and provide an opt-out option for future collection of a child's information.

Right of publicity
Just as a person has the right to keep personal information private, he or she also has the right to control the use of his or her identity for commercial promotion. Unauthorized use of one's name or likeness is recognized as an invasion of privacy.

There are four types of invasion of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. If a company uses a person's photo in an ad claiming that the person endorses a certain product, the person could file a lawsuit claiming misappropriation.

Movable boundaries
The Supreme Court approaches the right to privacy and personal autonomy on a case-by-case basis. As public opinion changes regarding relationships and activities, and the boundaries of personal privacy change, largely due to social media and an atmosphere of "sharing," the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you bloody well haven't. You've been asked to do so repeatedly, in this thread and others. And then you quiet down for a couple days before popping back up and making the exact same baseless assertions.

Yes, we have. Like five different people have. You arrived late in the thread. Go read it. I'm not going to do the hard work for you.

[Deleted]

Yes, I do. And I think with all the closed circuit cameras in public it happens a lot more than you think.

Only that isn't really breach of privacy. You can't expect not to be seen, filmed, heard or recorded in public places but the government has no place in peoples homes and I'm definitely not ok with someone listening in to my calls or monitoring my activity on the internet. Exactly for the same reason why the cops cant enter houses without a search warrant.

[Skroe]

A Google News search doesn't bring up any such reports, nor does a quick trawl of Drudge. Any chance of a link for that? Something like this one: Snowden Already Has a Job Offer from Russia's Facebook

Normally, I wouldn't ask, but you seem to have a habit of making claims of fact without substance or support. For example, I'm still waiting to see a link to support your claim that, "The PRISM legislation was passed and funded by both houses of congress."

Gladly!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ets-job-offers

The stay at the Sheremetyevo transit hotel was expensive, and Snowden paid for it with his own savings; now, those seem to have run out. "He had some of his own money,"

[Rukentuts]

Only that isn't really breach of privacy. You can't expect not to be seen, filmed, heard or recorded in public places but the government has no place in peoples homes and I'm definitely not ok with someone listening in to my calls or monitoring my activity on the internet. Exactly for the same reason why the cops cant enter houses without a search warrant.

And using data you willingly gave up to corporations isn't invading your privacy either.

The government isn't looking on your hard drive, they're looking at data you willingly gave to corporations. Thus your "house scenario" is false.