Edward Snowden - traitor ?

[Riverwolf]

Then there's the fact that all of the information in question can be stolen and sold, or accessed by China's Department of Hacking, etc etc.

There is no secure system.

So does it make sense to deny access to this data to the FBI/CIA/NSA when criminals and other governments probably have it or can get it anyway ?

"Laughing at your security since 2011"

Especially since it's not like their own security is any better. ^_^

 

[apophenia]

Especially since it's not like their own security is any better. ^_^

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually, without their having gathered the data in the first place it would be much much harder for it to be accessed, especially when we look at metadata which would require extremely significant access (in order to run the meta-analysis one needs access to all records) and is therefore in many ways easier to detect.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So is there a small consensus here that the NSA should cease and desist?

What is the proper balance of privacy and national security...and "is" there one?

Do you think there would be any ramifications from them complying with such a request to stop data mining?

My fear is that...while I don't really want government all up in my business.....I'm torn with the requirement they're to provide for the common defense. Maybe cyber terrorism.....and terrorist using burner cell phones and US sympathizers, contacts and terror cells are a new norm of warfare...

Tell me I'm just trying to strike fear or if these are valid concerns. They're just my opinions. I'm interested how you all see it. I think our constitution plays a valid role in how we live but sometimes I think much of what it advocated then is out of date with how things are and how things will be in the future.

 

[Riverwolf]

So is there a small consensus here that the NSA should cease and desist?

What is the proper balance of privacy and national security...and "is" there one?

Do you think there would be any ramifications from them complying with such a request to stop data mining?

My fear is that...while I don't really want government all up in my business.....I'm torn with the requirement they're to provide for the common defense. Maybe cyber terrorism.....and terrorist using burner cell phones and US sympathizers, contacts and terror cells are a new norm of warfare...

Tell me I'm just trying to strike fear or if these are valid concerns. They're just my opinions. I'm interested how you all see it. I think our constitution plays a valid role in how we live but sometimes I think much of what it advocated then is out of date with how things are and how things will be in the future.

Right now, the people in power don't fully understand the internet or what it's true capabilities are. The ability for them to spy on us is just too much of a recipe for disaster at this time.

Maybe sometime in the future, they'll be able to police the internet for cyber-terrorists in such a way that doesn't infringe on our privacy. But right now, we don't have it.

I'm not worried about cyber-terrorists, frankly. The chance of actually getting caught in an attack is extremely low. However, I do fear my government getting way too much power. I shouldn't be afraid of my own government.

 

[Wirey]

This ********* (it'll probably asterik out, so think refreshing vinegar and water contained in a bag product) sets a great example. He had access to secrets, and his internal moral compass was used to reveal them. Really? I guess that makes exposing Valerie Plame to being murdered okay, as long as the people who did it thought it was right. Which they obviously did believe, or they wouldn't have released it.

If I exposed an undercover cop in a drug sting because I believe the legalization of pot is right, I could get him killed. But, according to the supporters of this slimeball, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour as long as I use my moral compass to guide me. Mine, not yours. If there was a terrorist plot using these communication methods for planning, he just tipped them off, and maybe we won't be lucky enough to catch their carrier pigeons or smoke signals, or whatever alternative they came up with. How the Hell is endangering the lives of your fellow countrymen to satisfy your inner beliefs okay? Would you be okay with fundamentalist Christians outing gay people in order to drive them out of the community? Same principle.

 

[Riverwolf]

This ********* (it'll probably asterik out, so think refreshing vinegar and water contained in a bag product) sets a great example. He had access to secrets, and his internal moral compass was used to reveal them. Really? I guess that makes exposing Valerie Plame to being murdered okay, as long as the people who did it thought it was right. Which they obviously did believe, or they wouldn't have released it.

If I exposed an undercover cop in a drug sting because I believe the legalization of pot is right, I could get him killed. But, according to the supporters of this slimeball, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour as long as I use my moral compass to guide me. Mine, not yours. If there was a terrorist plot using these communication methods for planning, he just tipped them off, and maybe we won't be lucky enough to catch their carrier pigeons or smoke signals, or whatever alternative they came up with. How the Hell is endangering the lives of your fellow countrymen to satisfy your inner beliefs okay? Would you be okay with fundamentalist Christians outing gay people in order to drive them out of the community? Same principle.

Which is worse: occasional terrorist attacks in a free country, or no terrorist attacks in a fascist country? Which costs more lives?

I say: fascist countries cost more lives, since in such places, the government can just up and kill whoever it wants with absolutely no resistance. What happens when the government starts arresting those of us who do support this guy? Would you consider that acceptable?

Perhaps the government shouldn't be endangering the lives of its citizens by throwing oil on fires.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right now, the people in power don't fully understand the internet or what it's true capabilities are. The ability for them to spy on us is just too much of a recipe for disaster at this time.

Maybe sometime in the future, they'll be able to police the internet for cyber-terrorists in such a way that doesn't infringe on our privacy. But right now, we don't have it.

I'm not worried about cyber-terrorists, frankly. The chance of actually getting caught in an attack is extremely low. However, I do fear my government getting way too much power. I shouldn't be afraid of my own government.

But if they stop...do you think it opens the door for would be attackers to use the technology (phones and cell phones).... to carry out their agenda?

I do agree with you about the internet side of things. But on the flip side....what if we told them to stop and an act of terror was carried out but was plotted either out over internet communications, land line communication or cellphone. Should they not have a responsibility to keep the public safe.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This ********* (it'll probably asterik out, so think refreshing vinegar and water contained in a bag product) sets a great example. He had access to secrets, and his internal moral compass was used to reveal them. Really? I guess that makes exposing Valerie Plame to being murdered okay, as long as the people who did it thought it was right. Which they obviously did believe, or they wouldn't have released it.

If I exposed an undercover cop in a drug sting because I believe the legalization of pot is right, I could get him killed. But, according to the supporters of this slimeball, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour as long as I use my moral compass to guide me. Mine, not yours. If there was a terrorist plot using these communication methods for planning, he just tipped them off, and maybe we won't be lucky enough to catch their carrier pigeons or smoke signals, or whatever alternative they came up with. How the Hell is endangering the lives of your fellow countrymen to satisfy your inner beliefs okay? Would you be okay with fundamentalist Christians outing gay people in order to drive them out of the community? Same principle.

As an IT Professional who has worked for the fed. gov. with a top secret clearance and who is now working for a local gov. with access to sensitive data.....This is where I'm at. Many of my networking colleagues here at my job ans well as many of my friends are disgusted with him because some of us feel as though this gives us a bad reputation. In our IT Meeting this morning we agreed we would put network auditing software on our PCs that tracks our (local network) activity. It doesn't track internet activity since we already audit that with our internet filter/router server. We agreed to do this so that we could COOA (Cover our own a**).....but it used to not be like this.

 

[Riverwolf]

But if they stop...do you think it opens the door for would be attackers to use the technology (phones and cell phones).... to carry out their agenda?

I do agree with you about the internet side of things. But on the flip side....what if we told them to stop and an act of terror was carried out but was plotted either out over internet communications, land line communication or cellphone. Should they not have a responsibility to keep the public safe.

For the record, issues like this are why I'm not in the government. Sure I'm firm in my beliefs now, but if I actually had to make the decisions myself... let's just say that while I vehemently disagree with surveillance, I don't begrudge the individuals who came up with it; it's not them I'm afraid of.

I'm afraid of the ones who are not yet there taking advantage of it once they're in power.

The so-called "war on terror" is neverending. Bush started a war that can never truly stop (unless we end up at war with a legit country or something... let's REALLY hope not). Sooner or later, those with "questionable opinions" will be rounded up. Sure the ones who are currently in the government, or at least the majority of them, would never dream of such a thing, but back in the day, we had people like McCarthy ruining lives simply because he thought they were communists. During those terrible years, the government was a bigger threat to the American people than communists could ever be (not that they ever were, but still...)

I do NOT want to see my children living in such a world where their father can get arrested simply for learning about how hacking works for the sake of protection from malevolent hackers.

 

[dust1n]

So is there a small consensus here that the NSA should cease and desist?

Forced collection of all data...

What is the proper balance of privacy and national security...and "is" there one?

Do you think there would be any ramifications from them complying with such a request to stop data mining?

Instead of looking at all people in order to find a couple of people, why not just look for the couple of people? I don't know, but if you are doing so much that you have to contract to private companies to handle information systems, then you are creating huge holes in security. And then we get at "Chinese hackers" for getting so information. Use the technology responsibility, and there wouldn't be nearly as many security issues.

My fear is that...while I don't really want government all up in my business.....I'm torn with the requirement they're to provide for the common defense. Maybe cyber terrorism.....and terrorist using burner cell phones and US sympathizers, contacts and terror cells are a new norm of warfare...

Tell me I'm just trying to strike fear or if these are valid concerns. They're just my opinions. I'm interested how you all see it. I think our constitution plays a valid role in how we live but sometimes I think much of what it advocated then is out of date with how things are and how things will be in the future.

Even of the harvesting of metadata reveals great amounts of info about you are. All it takes is a warrant to attach the name, but since locations are tracked to, one doesn't even a name. You know where there house is...

 

[dust1n]

This ********* (it'll probably asterik out, so think refreshing vinegar and water contained in a bag product) sets a great example. He had access to secrets, and his internal moral compass was used to reveal them. Really? I guess that makes exposing Valerie Plame to being murdered okay, as long as the people who did it thought it was right. Which they obviously did believe, or they wouldn't have released it.

If I exposed an undercover cop in a drug sting because I believe the legalization of pot is right, I could get him killed. But, according to the supporters of this slimeball, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour as long as I use my moral compass to guide me. Mine, not yours. If there was a terrorist plot using these communication methods for planning, he just tipped them off, and maybe we won't be lucky enough to catch their carrier pigeons or smoke signals, or whatever alternative they came up with. How the Hell is endangering the lives of your fellow countrymen to satisfy your inner beliefs okay? Would you be okay with fundamentalist Christians outing gay people in order to drive them out of the community? Same principle.

Yea, those are all the same things.

 

[dust1n]

As an IT Professional who has worked for the fed. gov. with a top secret clearance and who is now working for a local gov. with access to sensitive data.....This is where I'm at. Many of my networking colleagues here at my job ans well as many of my friends are disgusted with him because some of us feel as though this gives us a bad reputation. In our IT Meeting this morning we agreed we would put network auditing software on our PCs that tracks our (local network) activity. It doesn't track internet activity since we already audit that with our internet filter/router server. We agreed to do this so that we could COOA (Cover our own a**).....but it used to not be like this.

So if you found illegal activity in some server, you wouldn't whistle blow?

 

[Wirey]

Yea, those are all the same things.

I'm not talking about the things, I'm talking about the principle. If a military officer decided drone strikes could harm civilians and started tipping off terrorists so they could evacuate before a strike, would you be okay with it as long as he felt morally justified? If a cop decided homeless kids were just lawbreakers in the making and started arresting them pre-emptively, would that be alright?

This schmuck made a decision that belongs to the American public based solely on his morals. That is completely wrong, and is the exact same thing he's accusing the government of being wrong for.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not talking about the things,

Shame, because that's kinda the crux of the argument.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So if you found illegal activity in some server, you wouldn't whistle blow?

I have but it was all dealt with internally. The person was terminated. In that case I was in a position to know what was permitted and what wasn't. I'm not saying Snowden didn't know but the way it's being reported is that he has in his possession more classified information. The reporter that broke the story said that he, the reporter, has seen the documents and knows of information that's contained therein that he didn't feel was appropriate to release to the people. Personally...I'm not sure I feel comfortable with low level IT workers and reporters deciding what should be released to the people. I sort of feel the same way about the government.


I'm concerned that we have people with their hands on sensitive information that could potentially end up in foreign hands. I even worry about Snowden being in China leaking info. I don't think he has but it is a concern.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some one else posted this in another thread...and I felt as though it was relevant here......

[youtube]t27ie4qFlXM[/youtube]
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance - YouTube




........:run:

 

[Riverwolf]

Some one else posted this in another thread...and I felt as though it was relevant here......

[youtube]t27ie4qFlXM[/youtube]
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance - YouTube




........:run:

I'm not the least bit surprised. Politicians always flip-flop on these issues depending on whether they're in power or not.

 

[Alceste]

I'm actually quite astonished that nobody minds the government being able to put a detailed profile of them together by collecting information on everything they say and do and everyone they talk to. Not just the government, but the private contractors they hire, the business interests they work with, and their allies in foreign states. All without a warrant or subpoena.

This is obviously not the same world I grew up in. People are sleepwalking into an Orwellian hell, where the government knows everything about what you're up to but tells you nothing about what they're up to, all your friends and neighbors think that's the natural order of things, and the whole stinking edifice is propped up by vapid threats about terrorists and distant wars.

Let's all go watch Brazil and think of it as a documentary from the future.

 

[Aquitaine]

Some one else posted this in another thread...and I felt as though it was relevant here......

[youtube]t27ie4qFlXM[/youtube]
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance - YouTube




........:run:

Wow......

This is why I tend to shy away from the MSM. Sometimes I think I'll be better off unaware, than misguided.