Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks

[Bakis]

They need a warrant for account information and actual calls. This is the Constitution working as intended.

The famous warrant from the special security court which has no transparancy as always

[Sevyvia]

He's seeking asylum in a foreign country instead of facing the consequences of his actions he says he strongly believed in. Sounds like a coward to me.

Spoken like a true mindless "patriot."

[NatePsy]

This is one of the major things that pisses me off, I know I'm not doing anything wrong but I don't want some other country spying on me because they have access to all these providers.

[GreatOak]

Tell me how it's different than using an F-18.

F-18s require more oversight, don't do double taps, and don't do signature strikes against people we know nothing about.

[Rukentuts]

F-18s require more oversight, don't do double taps, and don't do signature strikes against people we know nothing about.

Give me proof.

[Wildtree]

They need a warrant for account information and actual calls. This is the Constitution working as intended.

Look...

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

I believe the constitution also protects from such doing, doesn't it?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/politi...rds/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-court-order

[Rukentuts]

Look...
I believe the constitution also protects from such doing, doesn't it?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/politi...rds/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-court-order

What part of metadata don't you get? Remember last page when I was saying people getting outraged over things they don't get?

[The Riddler]

That's kinda what the application for tax exempt status says buddy

Then the statement 'should not have' is falsely applied, because the conservative groups were given their status, and the IRS is the one eating crow over their improper, illegal, and unethical behavior. The IRS is losing jobs. They are being put on leave. They are under investigation for possible criminal activity. That's the only behavior in this scandal that "should not have been engaged in" as far as I can tell.

[Deleted]

Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning put their country before some politician or general's ass and they're treated as the biggest fucking criminals ever. Yet the banksters that ruined the economy in the 2008 crash walked scott-free and just went on laughing at us.

More funny is that Assange also got fucked for reporting on this and got crucified by the media because, well, he did their fucking job. Liberty and democracry for you.

[Arith]

For those lost and confusing their facts, PRISM collects far more than meta data. Read their own internal spreadsheets and see for yourself. The meta data story is a different issue, pertaining to Verizon's records being obtained the other day. Let's get our facts straight please.

[GreatOak]

And if anyone else is still out of the loop for some reason

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

[Rukentuts]

And if anyone else is still out of the loop for some reason

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones

And that's different from an F-18 or missiles how?

[Wildtree]

What part of metadata don't you get? Remember last page when I was saying people getting outraged over things they don't get?

My phone records are MY privacy, I am happy to share it with any agency if they ask me for it.
I am also very understandable that my data needs to be revealed when I am under suspicion. But NOT when I am not.
Meta data is something else btw. Meta data would be:
1. I have a Verizon acct (I actually really do)
2. I have spent x amount of hours on the phone/texting.
3. I have made x amount of calls / texts

What numbers I called, whom I sent texts to is NOT meta data, that is an intrusion of my privacy.

[Rukentuts]

My phone records are MY privacy, I am happy to share it with any agency if they ask me for it.

Perhaps you should read the Terms of Service before you sign the dotted line next time.

[Sorrior]

Wheres this fine line we're not supposed to cross with regards to privacy vs security? We cry when the feds to this, but we also cry "ya'll didn't do enough!" when things like Boston happen.

just where is this line? Or is this a case of we want our cake and eat it too kind of scenario?

People like me don't cry about things like boston or even 9/11...I just see it as if anything a sign of how messed up our society is becoming...Boston wise 9/11 is a classic case of shit WILL happen given enough time....

[GreatOak]

Give me proof.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/ne...arentid=131351
http://www.businessinsider.com/drone...ponders-2012-9
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/de...NotEmbargo.pdf


Why do you try so hard to defend this shit?

[Tinykong]

What part of metadata don't you get? Remember last page when I was saying people getting outraged over things they don't get?

The problem people have, is that this is essentially like reading the outside of your mail, and creating suspicion based on who sent you the letter. They are storing the information, in ever increasing capacity, and have the capability to go back in time to bolster that suspicion.

People are rightfully outraged. It's an electronic dragnet.

[Rukentuts]

http://www.international.ucla.edu/ne...arentid=131351
http://www.businessinsider.com/drone...ponders-2012-9
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/de...NotEmbargo.pdf


Why do you try so hard to defend this shit?

Because none of your links differentiate between drones and conventional aircraft, and, not to mention, I disproved with my earlier link.

[Wildtree]

Perhaps you should read the Terms of Service before you sign the dotted line next time.

i am aware that my data gets handed over to authorities in a valid event. That's old news really..
But the law also says this can only happen in case of a valid suspicion, and not just for the sake of collecting it.
You referred to the constitution before, when that very constitution says it's not legal what the government does. Or it can at least interpreted as such, and in fact does so, since congress members are now calling on the Supreme Court to clear the matters.

I am really not comfortable enough to put me above the laws, if apparently lawmakers aren't comfortable either.. Where do you take that confidence to claim it's all fair game and legal?

Let me clear this upfront. I may have a lot of sympathy and understanding for the governments doing. I can totally see the preventive intentions behind the PRISM program. I am just not sure whether they are crossing a line by simply ignoring the law.

[Rukentuts]

Let me clear this upfront. I may have a lot of sympathy and understanding for the governments doing. I can totally see the preventive intentions behind the PRISM program. I am just not sure whether they are crossing a line by simply ignoring the law.

It was authorized and overseen by the Judicial Branch. It's not an overstep.