|
Here's an easy fix, thats already in place legally but being ignored.
Electronic data are the same as written documents.
If you cannot grab the letter i have sent by courier to my friend, open it, and read the contents then your carnivore program, prism, or whatever, cannot grab a hold of my email and open it to figure out if I'm a foreigner or not, so it can't read my email. Period.
Its the same as sneaking into everyone's house, then retroactively deciding if they're Americans or not.. its too late at that point, you've already broken the law.
I agree 100%.
It's unfortunate then, that in my current state of Ohio, there's a bill being passed around that will make it legal for a police officer to have full access to your smartphone and all its contents, with a search warrant (I hope).
It's unfortunate then, that in my current state of Ohio, there's a bill being passed around that will make it legal for a police officer to have full access to your smartphone and all its contents, with a search warrant (I hope).
Now would this also extend to the citizen's personal computer via phones using desktop access programs?
Provided they have a search warrant? I Would Say had better be a big part of the process. Without a warrant I'm not handing anything over to anyone.
With a search warrant doesn't bother me very much. If the bill states that no warrant is required, then it adds Ohio to the list of states I'd never wnt to live in.
I'm not sure if it was for the same Ohio law, but I saw one proposed law recently that would let officers seize cell phones without warrant immediately after an accident if they suspect the phone contributed to the crash. The article specifically mentioned they could already do it with warrant, but that the warranting process was so common they wanted to get rid of the formality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also saw some scuttlebutt about a flight to Iceland?
I haven't been paying attention, but I hate it.
Hands off Snowden!
Down with Big Brother!
Down with Obama!
We've Already Got the Stasi, We Might As Well Get the Jobs and Healthcare! For Workers Revolution!
Well, if the US was serious about extraditing him, they wouldn't have gone with the dubious espionage charge (on top of the revealing classified info/stealing government property charges), since that is accepted as a political charge excluded from extradition treaties.
Of course, if Snowden is guilty of 'espionage', then why isn't Greenwald, et al? Isn't it wierd for somebody pursuing an espionage plot/conspiracy to first take their info to the Washington Post (before contacting Poitras/Greenwald)? ...Whose editors of course told the government what was up (if not revealing his personal identity, which they may not have been aware of), setting them on the hunt for an active leaker.
Of course, they may well want to lay espionage charges on Greenwald, and lay the ground for such persecution of journalists... There's already direct evidence that government contractors were out to smear Greenwald specifically (before all this, just based on his opinion pieces) and force him to change his tune and cooperate, along with trying to smear WikiLeak's reputation by planting false stories with them (subsequently revealed to smear their reputation/believability). That was back when WikiLeaks had a major leak from Bank of America revealing criminal activity, which was lost due to a 'defector' from WikiLeaks, with US Chamber of Commerce getting involved in actions against WikiLeaks (but at least no bankers went to jail!) The fact is Snowden clearly was acting on his own, first going to the Washington Post and having to convince Poitras and Greenwald to cooperate rather proves that... this is not the act of an 'agent of a foreign state'. (Well, you can never prove a negative, but clearly there is no evidence to the contrary, not even the government is claiming that, the espionage charge was just pulled from thin air as a slightly more palatable version of the wholely political 'treason' charge, although normalizing charging journalists with 'espionage' may well be their goal here)
Never mind that leaking of secrets is not news, in "Mr. Transarency in Government" Obama's regime, classified secrets have exploded in number, so that practically every month if not week there is core regime members leaking "secrets" to the press in order to push their own selective narrative with nobody able to dispute it because all the other facts are kept "secret". But it's OK, Obama can spin this and act reasonable "It's good we have a debate on this" even though his regime did everything to prevent debate, knowledge of facts, and committed perjury before Congress to do that.
Of course, if Snowden is guilty of 'espionage', then why isn't Greenwald, et al?
No lawyer over here, of course, but my understanding is that, so far, it's not illegal to reveal government secrets if you're a journalist and that's what part of the big flap about that James Rosen dude was about.
But, yeah, I largely agree. God, Obama makes me sick when he pulls that hypocritical "we should have a debate" crap. I, thankfully, watch him as little as possible, but that footage of him while they dragged that CodePink woman off the floor during his CounterTerrorism speech made me laugh and then puke.
the point is revealing government secrets is it's own crime separate from 'espionage'.
of course, journalists are not "supposed" to be guilty for publising secrets revealed to them by a source, it's the source's problem.
if the only actions of snowden here are contacting journalists to leak information to be published,
than the journalists must clearly be part of the espionage plot, otherwise there is no espionage,
just leaking of secrets, it's own crime. if this is espionage and the journalist is aiding it, then they are equally guilty,
since there is no other supporting evidence of 'espionage' plot or intent on snowden's part, other than leaking the info (which the journalist was aware of), there's no basis for saying the journalist was an unwitting tool of a foreign espionage plot, they were fully aware of every relevant detail.
of course, a global interventionist country like the US has many foreign dealings, so leaking info about it's operations will reveal foreign entanglements and implications, but the public knowing about the government's foreign actions is just as legitimate as knowing about it's domestic ones, the fact info on foreign operations is leaked doesn't make it "espionage".
of course, the point is there really isn't any separate crime going on,
the government is just upping the charges to demonize him more, but the implications of invoking 'espionage' would mean that the normal (if the government also wants to remove them) protections on journalists publishing leaks revealed to them are irrelevant, since that is solely applicable to the revealing secrets crime NOT the espionage crime.
but this is the regime that invents 'national security exceptions' to basic constitutional requirements, even though the constitution was written at a time when the government was most weak, had recently finished a separatist war and potential traitors must have been rife amidst the populace, i.e. national security was just as much of a concern IF NOT MORE (if you define that as security of the nation, as opposed to security of networks of power and global domination outside regime of national jurisdiction)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well, it's always useful to go back and realize that many of the original victims of the Espionage Act were prosecuted or thrown in jail for: giving speeches against World War I, reading the First Amendment of the Constitution aloud to an anti-draft rally, making a movie about the American Revolution that depicted the British (our allies in WWI) in a negative fashion.
The Espionage Act is a load of horsepuckey and has never been about espionage, it has always been about crushing internal dissent.
I'm sorry guys, I'm still not buying this guys story at face value. He has been acting rather standoffish/quiet since his original statements, and I don't care for his manner of debate. He is simply courting the audience he has created without adding anything new. While I am perhaps grateful for the dialogue he started, I remain skeptical.
I'm sorry guys, I'm still not buying this guys story at face value. He has been acting rather standoffish/quiet since his original statements, and I don't care for his manner of debate. He is simply courting the audience he has created without adding anything new. While I am perhaps grateful for the dialogue he started, I remain skeptical.
He's been "standoffish" by having a live chat with people on the guardian.
You don't care for his "manner" ? What does that even mean?
The government hacking servers to make copies of everything you do just in case they want to look at it later is in fact new.
I'm sorry guys, I'm still not buying this guys story at face value. He has been acting rather standoffish/quiet since his original statements, and I don't care for his manner of debate. He is simply courting the audience he has created without adding anything new. While I am perhaps grateful for the dialogue he started, I remain skeptical.He's been "standoffish" by having a live chat with people on the guardian.
You don't care for his "manner" ? What does that even mean?
The government hacking servers to make copies of everything you do just in case they want to look at it later is in fact new.
I've read a few articles on his responses to some of the questions he has been asked and I've found some of the critical ones to be non-answers or outright deflections. That's what I meant by standoffish and not liking his manner. It could be that I'm going to the wrong source for some of these interviews-I've already run into one place that misquoted him (and swiftly corrected it). As for the government hacking servers, that's something that's going to be difficult to discuss-its basically going to be refuted and any evidence given for or against is going to be seen as fabricated.
I'm sorry guys, I'm still not buying this guys story at face value. He has been acting rather standoffish/quiet since his original statements, and I don't care for his manner of debate. He is simply courting the audience he has created without adding anything new. While I am perhaps grateful for the dialogue he started, I remain skeptical.Essentially, who cares?
Why make the story about him?
because, like I said before, this is a lot to take at his word alone.
Don't take his word: the government charged him with leaking secrets and espionage, and hasn't disputed anything he's said.
Hell, the government has now admitted committing perjury in their own previous statements on the subject.
As for the government hacking servers, that's something that's going to be difficult to discuss-its basically going to be refuted and any evidence given for or against is going to be seen as fabricated.
So avoid the entire substance of the issue, indeed why the US is charging him with crimes, because it's 'difficult'?
What does the US and allied policestates have to worry about leaks then, if nobody wants to deal with the substance?While I am perhaps grateful for the dialogue he started, I remain skeptical.
I don't care for his manner of debate. He is simply courting the audience he has created without adding anything new.
If you won't deal with the substance of the issue, what debate is there?
What debate do you want? Obama and NSA director flying to HK, offering open debate with no police pressure on Snowden?Well, they just aren't offering that, they're happy to tar his reputation, offer misleading justifications and shrug off their own admitted crimes, but they aren't interested in real debate with Snowden.
Why aren't you reading the original Q&A interviews and not relying on 3rd party re-hashes?
But sure, dealing with this issue doesn't lead to any safe reassuring answers, you're just left with a conflict between norms of civil society and a policestate leviathan that does what it wants and coopts any means to control it, with no safe and certain resolution. Better to stick your head in the sand, or better to deal with reality, with solidarity as part of a democratic society?
Seriously, Obama has now claimed that 'serious civil libertarians' are on the oversight board for surveillance activities, which has never produced any evidence of ever doing anything or indeed having any concrete meetings and it's supposed address is unoccupied, although it's lead member is in fact a staffer of the Director of National Intelligence. So, with this board presumably aware of all the facts, this supposed 'serious civil libertarian' member did nothing when the government was committing perjury to Congress (as now admitted). Right. Since Obama's so down on 'serious civil libertarians', I don't see why not we can't just appoint ACLU and EFF people to all these top positions, right?
Meanwhile, we have long had evidence that government contractors/the government (all this stuff is mixed up in such a web) were explicitly planning disinformation campaigns to destroy the credibility of WikiLeaks by planting false leaks with them, as well as planning to intimidate Glen Greenwald specifically to tow their line and abandon his criticism (well before he was involved with this leak, and was just editorializing based on regular old journalism and access to public information including WikiLeaks).
And of course any serious terrorist would have long assumed that the government is surveilling everything, and adjusted their methods in light of that. So this is really about surveilling the mass populace. All the 'plots' the government stops seem to be total chumps who are just set up by government entrapment.
Besides, it's clear that he does know alot of stuff, and hasn't revealed it yet.
I'm sure plenty of countries around the world would like to know more details, including China.
That he may be reticent with his words may be up to not wanting to play all his hand now, to have an insurance policy vs. US actions,
or simply to keep the message and story focused, on what even the US president acknowledges is a public service enabling a debate.
In fact, all of the NSA staff, including the people who designed these programs, who went thru 'legal channels' for reporting abuse to no avail and whose lives were ruined, fully support Snowden for doing what he did and understand why he couldn't go thru 'legal channels' for complaints because they already did that and it just didnt' work and they were targetted for doing so. http://atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-01-210613.html
He's on the move! Run snowden run!
Sometimes I really want to like or favorite a comment, but I can't...literally because I use my real name.If you show any support for Snowden they'll be coming for you next.
110 thousand of us on the white house petition. If they come for that many for just talking you know its over.
You don't be able to DO anything about it but at least you'll know.
from angryarab.blogspot.com/electronicintifada.org
The pathetic track record of Human Rights Watch: a pattern of cowardice
"In response to these developments, Ken Roth, head of "Human Rights Watch," tweeted:
"Snowden’s #Ecuador is limiting asylum rights http://trib.al/goW5gcS and criminalizing journalists who harm security."
No sooner had Snowden’s plane touched down on Russian soil then Roth retweeted this pearl of wisdom from one of his "human rights" buddies:
"Edward Snowden, martyr for online freedom and privacy, now passing thru Moscow? Say hi to Alexei Navalny while you’re there."
As one Twitter wit quipped:
"Seems @KenRoth is following Snowden around the world, blasting HR in every country his plane is landing."" As if there is a democratic country that would dare take him.
Its very easy to look at someone in the past and say they broke the law, but it was a law that needed to be broken. That implies that the people who made those laws were wrong.
It was illegal to start a war to free america from british rule, but today we say that the british were wrong.
It was illegal for Harriet tubman to lead slaves out of the south, but today we say that slavery was wrong.
It was illegal for rosa parks to sit in the white section of the bus, now we recognize that segregation is wrong.
It was illegal to print proof that the us government was lying about Vietnam, but now we recognize the right of the press to print information it obtains.
It is much, much harder to recognize that we can STILL be wrong. That the laws we have in place now are just as self serving, corrupt, and in need of being broken as anything the us had tried in the past.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its very easy to look at someone in the past and say they broke the law, but it was a law that needed to be broken. That implies that the people who made those laws were wrong.
It was illegal to start a war to free america from british rule, but today we say that the british were wrong.
It was illegal for Harriet tubman to lead slaves out of the south, but today we say that slavery was wrong.
It was illegal for rosa parks to sit in the white section of the bus, now we recognize that segregation is wrong.
It was illegal to print proof that the us government was lying about Vietnam, but now we recognize the right of the press to print information it obtains.
It is much, much harder to recognize that we can STILL be wrong. That the laws we have in place now are just as self serving, corrupt, and in need of being broken as anything the us had tried in the past.
You have grasped a fundamental truth.
It all comes down to your willingness to look the other way while the Government functions without having to seek the regular consent of the people.
But, of course, ...
And, while we are on the subject, check this out. :)
Apparently Snowden was supposed to have been in Moscow, hopping a plane for Cuba. A bunch of journalists booked last minute seats on the flight. However, Snowden never got on the plane. The journalists got to sit through a 16 hour flight for nothing. I guess none of them have had the "investigative" tag stuck in front of the "journalist" title.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of Cuba, here is a reminder of why the US government should cut on the false indignation and outrage when some other country refuse to aknowledge its extradition demands : Luis Posada.
Here is a full blown terrorist, guilty of dozens of civilians deaths (the most emblematic being the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, 78 victims) who currently is living in Miami despite the fact that various foreign countries actively and continuously ask for his extradition.
But hey, he was a CIA agent ! How can't they see the obvious difference ?
Its very easy to look at someone in the past and say they broke the law, but it was a law that needed to be broken. That implies that the people who made those laws were wrong.
It was illegal to start a war to free america from british rule, but today we say that the british were wrong.
It was illegal for Harriet tubman to lead slaves out of the south, but today we say that slavery was wrong.
It was illegal for rosa parks to sit in the white section of the bus, now we recognize that segregation is wrong.
what bothers me abour these three, but especially the last two, is that the people involved were ready and willing to pay the ultimate price for what they were doing. I realize myopinion is not popular in this, but I do not see snowden doing this here. I think people are inferring the wrong things from 1984 in this one.
Why he is not dead is pretty simple: He even said it himself. He scanned the stuff he had and did not go public with the stuff that would really hurt. Otherwise put, if the proper stuff does not keep happening, which he needs to be alive to do, Very Bad Things gets sent by someone else to every major news office and web site in the world. Thus... He really isn't in serious danger, I would think. Still, it is a complicated situation. The agencies need to be seen to do SOMETHING.
Second, do not assume anyone is talking about metadata unless they clearly state a credible reason for it not to be fulltext. As for such reasons... There are none. At least none that I can think of. We know they copy the entire communication in every major data cable. We know nobody gets to see their processes. Are we supposed to TRUST them now? No. Everything you send, be it text or voice, gets collected, recorded, automatically analysed, filed to your personal folder even if nothing in the system triggers from it, all ready to be used the moment you become a problem to the system. Or anyone you ever communicated with becomes a problem. There is a serious disconnect here. People don't want this to be true, so they focus on phrases like "we collect third party metadata", which are utterly pointless because A) that phrase does not deny they also collect full text, and B) even if they were to claim NOT to collect full text, nobody onthe outside has a chance to check the veracity of that claim.
This s$%$ is going to continue until the idea of states of exception continues to exist. If a government is excused from anything because there is a war going on, the government is going to keep declaring wars to get those excuses. Do the following instead: Chart the surveillance and security agencies completely, budget-wise. Throw them to the dogs in the media on the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. They say they need secrecy, so proof of wrongdoing can't be achieved. Mere suspicion will have to suffice. Next, every time a terrorist act happens, they must be seen as responsible, meaning a significant portion of their total budget is gone, and some part of their special capabilities gets axed. And for the love of everything that is holy, don't ever see them as part of your country. Without proper oversight, they work for the highest bidder, and assuming so will save you many problems. Since they grew powerful... Has the world gotten safer... Or worse?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is no one talking about Edward Snowden?
The first rule of Spying on Your Own People Club is we don't talk about Spying on Your Own People Club.
Apparently Snowden was supposed to have been in Moscow, hopping a plane for Cuba. A bunch of journalists booked last minute seats on the flight. However, Snowden never got on the plane. The journalists got to sit through a 16 hour flight for nothing. I guess none of them have had the "investigative" tag stuck in front of the "journalist" title.
Russia is saying he never entered the country.
So you think Harriet Tubman should have turned herself in?
Hear, hear!
Vive le Moses!
No. Everything you send, be it text or voice, gets collected, recorded, automatically analysed, filed to your personal folder even if nothing in the system triggers from it, all ready to be used the moment you become a problem to the system. Or anyone you ever communicated with becomes a problem. There is a serious disconnect here. People don't want this to be true, so they focus on phrases like "we collect third party metadata", which are utterly pointless because A) that phrase does not deny they also collect full text, and B) even if they were to claim NOT to collect full text, nobody onthe outside has a chance to check the veracity of that claim.
Turns out, for privacy's sake, you're better off patronizing your local post office.
My ignorance of computers is pretty strong, but from what I've been reading, with the Utah computer supercenters that they got analyzing "telephony metadata" and what not, they don't even need to hear your conversations anyway.
I was even reading that from analyzing the signals coming out of your smartphone, computers can learn to identify you by your gait.
But that might be tinfoil hat shiznit, I couldn't say. Tell you what though, I'm not buying a smartphone anytime soon.
what bothers me abour these three, but especially the last two, is that the people involved were ready and willing to pay the ultimate price for what they were doing. I realize myopinion is not popular in this, but I do not see snowden doing this here. I think people are inferring the wrong things from 1984 in this one.Its very easy to look at someone in the past and say they broke the law, but it was a law that needed to be broken. That implies that the people who made those laws were wrong.
It was illegal to start a war to free america from british rule, but today we say that the british were wrong.
It was illegal for Harriet tubman to lead slaves out of the south, but today we say that slavery was wrong.
It was illegal for rosa parks to sit in the white section of the bus, now we recognize that segregation is wrong.
Somehow among the possible outcomes for Rosa Parks, even in the deep South, I highly doubt that she expected that she'd get the gas chamber for refusing to move to the back of the bus. While I give her her due, I don't recall Parks putting herself on the line in any other fashion.
Snowden on the other hand, faces the very real possibility of an effective life sentence if certain people in the U.S. Government have their way. Possibly a convenient "disappearance" as well.
Parks could easily have been killed for sport. She knew this, as did the others who joined in civil disobedience. However the civil disobedience was for the most part, civil. I'm not seeing civil disobedience here and am instead becoming more and more concerned with each country that america has so-so relations with that he goes to.
Is the GPS on a smart phone that accurate, or is it using the same tech that tells the screen to flip?
what bothers me abour these three, but especially the last two, is that the people involved were ready and willing to pay the ultimate price for what they were doing. I realize myopinion is not popular in this, but I do not see snowden doing this here. I think people are inferring the wrong things from 1984 in this one.Its very easy to look at someone in the past and say they broke the law, but it was a law that needed to be broken. That implies that the people who made those laws were wrong.
It was illegal to start a war to free america from british rule, but today we say that the british were wrong.
It was illegal for Harriet tubman to lead slaves out of the south, but today we say that slavery was wrong.
It was illegal for rosa parks to sit in the white section of the bus, now we recognize that segregation is wrong.
So you think Harriet Tubman should have turned herself in?
Or the Founding Fathers should have surrendered to British authorities?
Rosa Parks is a different case. She was doing civil disobedience and protest. Going to jail is a part of that.And anyway it doesn't really matter what any of us think of Snowden. He's a distraction. What he revealed is what is important. As I asked before
What are we taking on his word alone? He's delivered documents. The government hasn't claimed they're forged. They haven't denied the programs.
Are you really claiming that these programs don't exist, because you don't trust this guy? That the government is just playing along and not denying it for some unknown reason?
jeff I already had breakfast, please don't shove words in my mouth.
Ever hear of a Spielsberg movie called "The Terminal"? International Airport Terminals make some pretty interesting leaglisms possible.Apparently Snowden was supposed to have been in Moscow, hopping a plane for Cuba. A bunch of journalists booked last minute seats on the flight. However, Snowden never got on the plane. The journalists got to sit through a 16 hour flight for nothing. I guess none of them have had the "investigative" tag stuck in front of the "journalist" title.Russia is saying he never entered the country.
...and lazar just took the words right out of my mouth.
What is it with this thread and my mouth?
Anklebiter, why are you looking at me longingly?