Posted on 12/03/2013 8:04:04 AM PST by oxcart
Edited on 12/03/2013 1:16:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
“The article for this thread says 1% has been revealed publicly, so you are wrong about that.”
Well, this is the same 1% that you are claiming he “gave” to our enemies. So, what exactly am I wrong about? Or do you have some evidence that he released more to foreign governments than has been released by the Guardian?
“What are you saying Snowden revealed that hasn’t been known for years?”
How about the PRISM data mining program? Unknown to the public prior to Snowden’s revelations. Ditto for the extent that program was used to spy on all Americans, unlawfully, without warrants.
“It needs to be addressed within the US in the context of law and US security.”
Quis custodiet ipso custodes?
Data mining has been known for years.
In general, sure. However, you cannot possibly assert that the specific PRISM program, or the extent to which it was unlawfully used against the American public (and our allies) was known. This is pertinent information that Snowden has revealed to the public, don’t you think?
You’ll find few takers for your point of view here. The government is out of control. Many here don’t support the surveillance state.
The Dims have exactly the same views about Obama.
This is why it's so incredibly convenient that the powers that be have us so perfectly divided. It enables them to do a lot of stuff that they'd never be able to get away with otherwise.
Having read cryptome for many years, I realize you are correct. Certainly anyone who looked into it even a little bit would know that the we spied on Brit citizens and they spied on our citizens and then they traded data. And that was just for starters.
However I also recognize Snowden as a traitor. No matter how clever or righteous he thinks he is, he violated his agreement and must be punished accordingly. If people want to erect statues of him, that's fine. But nothing can justify what he did.
How was it unlawfully used against the American public?
Again, not a trick question. I would like to know.
My point is that Snowden revealed details useful to our enemies but nothing novel.
Your statement is consistent with my contention.
Yes.
Think about the Guardian.
They are as UK statist as possible and the UK has a much more intrusive domestic surveillance establishment than the US.
And we are supposed to believe that the Guardian’s intent is to guard the freedoms of US citizens?
What do you think “my viewpoint” is?
Do you think Snowden is a patriot trying to fight for the US Constitution?
“How was it unlawfully used against the American public?”
Well, for one the use violated the 4th Amendment. The government is not allowed to spy on the people without a warrant, and the warrants they did receive from the FISA courts did not cover the wholesale collection they were practicing against the public. In fact, it is not even possible for the FISA courts to issue a warrant granting the NSA authority to spy on anyone, anywhere, since warrants must specifically detail what is being sought. A warrant that is nonspecific is an invalid warrant.
“My point is that Snowden revealed details useful to our enemies but nothing novel.
Your statement is consistent with my contention.”
No, I think you misunderstood me. Data mining, in general was known about, but we only knew it was used by private entities, not our own government. There were reports that the government was buying the databases from private companies like google that were data mining, but there was no public knowledge that the government was doing this itself. If anything was out there, it was just rumors with no confirmation, and nobody can take action to stop a program based on a rumor.
In fact, as others have pointed out, if Snowden, someone with no qualifications or bona fides, learned about this program, then it is almost a certainty that foreign intelligence services already knew about it. After all, it is their job to try and infiltrate our programs and compromise our agents, and their agents do have qualifications and bona fides. So, I would say that Snowden revealed much more new information to the public than to any of our foreign enemies.
“However I also recognize Snowden as a traitor. No matter how clever or righteous he thinks he is, he violated his agreement and must be punished accordingly.”
Traitor to who? The NSA? The country? The people? Can he be a traitor to one, while a patriot to the others? If the government has betrayed the people, then are you still bound by oaths you made to it? Or has the government invalidated those oaths by failing to uphold its end of the bargain?
Your contention about data mining being contrary to the 4th Amendment is questionable and debatable.
How does blind crunching of data violate search and seizure?
As far as data mining, we’ve known the government is doing that for years.
Back in the day here at FR in the aughts when Bush was President it was discussed.
Back then Dems were all up in arms about it, as were some non-dems. Pretty much the exact same discussion as now without the Snowden disclosures to US enemies of useful details.
I don’t particularly care what he motivation is. Nor do I particularly care which organizations are publishing the data. What I do care about is that he has lifted a veil on the surveillance state that has been sorely needed for years. I realize some of the information that has come out was previously suspected, but confirmation is key with this stuff, as is actually being able to get the word out. Regardless of the motivations behind the release, the American people have been well served by the leak.
“What I do care about is that he has lifted a veil on the surveillance state that has been sorely needed for years. “
What was uncovered that was not known?
Is it worth al Qaeda or other terrorist groups having access to info wherein they may be better able to avoid detection?
How are we to proceed from here in addressing and correcting abuses said to have been unveiled by Snowden?
“Your contention about data mining being contrary to the 4th Amendment is questionable and debatable.
How does blind crunching of data violate search and seizure?”
If the government needs a warrant to inspect my mail or “crunch” my phone records, then they need a warrant for this too. I don’t see how that is debatable. If the government thought they needed no additional authority to do this, then they could have done it openly, rather than secretly. Instead, they hid the program, because they knew full well the repercussions of a public revelation.
“As far as data mining, we’ve known the government is doing that for years.”
Sorry, but you are just wrong on this point. I think you are confusing data mining with other types of surveillance programs that are similar, but not the same. The government data mining is a brand new revelation that at best was only speculated on prior to Snowden, and never confirmed.
No.
Do you know what cluster analysis is?
Data mining of our phone records has been going on for years.
I don’t know what you mean by crunch phone records. That would seem to be close to analogous.
Reading mail is not analogous to blind data mining of phone call records. That would be analogous to listening to phone conversations. That would require a warrant.
In blind data mining, what is searched or seized that relates to any individual specifically?
What does your contract with the phone provider say? No one is forced to use their service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.