Printable View
What do you think?
He did not leak anything other governments didn’t already know. He only informed the public of what the US government was doing to its own citizens.
Yet politicians on both sides are calling for his head and saying that they are doing nothing wrong.
Who do you believe?
Delusional narcissist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Well, I know which newspaper you read that in.
A nice piece of media based damage control.
To me it is more the open release of the information than the individual, yet they start to work to discredit and vilify the leaker.
Was there ever a time when the people were asked, do you think this is a good idea or is it a step too far?
It s not that it has not been obvious. It has just been one of those things you know they are doing but not saying.
I am guessing most of you don’t really care that your government is becoming a surveillance state.
Calling him a traitor is hypocritical because if it's OK for the government to snoop on its citizens, it's OK for a citizen to snoop on the government.
And for the record I find such a degree of surveillance a little creepy. What perverse motives do they have that they go so far in spying on their citizens?
He didn't put anyone in danger like Assange did, he just revealed something that is worth worrying about. He deserves nothing but respect
The reason that these programs are seen as legal is because there is no way to challenge them.
As the programs are secret, courts, including the Supreme Court, will not grant standing to anyone bringing suite. They can not know what is in the law because it is secret.
Just how cool is that?
While this incident points up that the call data and not the calls are being logged, don’t fool your self. Calls are being recorded.
Perhaps the only ones kept are the ones with keywords in the conversations that trigger a response but all are monitored.
The call data would allow them to link conversations to phone records to know, more or less, just who made the call.
I am sure there are worse things going on, and yes, your computer spies on you too. This is only the tip of a great iceberg.
The US government insists that what it is doing is legal. Classic criminal response; they've rationalized activity that is an obvious affront to law to people not involved in the conspiracy. It is not legal just because they say it is. General warrants without reasonable suspicion to consume all personal effects and spy on people are barred by the constitution. Judges who have signed off on this are criminally corrupt. When government actions break the law, people informing the American people are whistleblowers. Bradley Manning was a traitor, but I support anyone stealing information from our corrupt government for non-terrorist or extra-national related purposes
Americans have an obligation to betray the political elite and the media that supports them. There are 2 parties in Washington. The people and the enemies of the people.
Too easy, let them explain how it is still legal if they do it internationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
This is basically my view as well (minus the Assange bit). Manning also just vomited up reams of information, the vast majority of which did not show any wrongdoing by the US, and thus endangered US policy, relations, and possibly lives for no whistleblowing purposes whatsoever. Regardless of whether he exposed some wrongdoing with some of his data, releasing the rest of it was inexcusable. I will not shed a single tear if he gets life in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Snowden is significantly different. He actively selected out the information that he felt was necessary to inform the public about a serious issue. He released only the information that was needed to cover that issue and held back all other information that could have endangered US interests or lives. In addition, he released that information through sources that themselves then did a second round of editing to ensure that the absolute minimum amount of information necessary was released into the public. That is someone who cares a great deal about correcting a problem while doing as little harm as possible to our nation and our people. I hope they just leave the fellow alone, he's not likely to cause any more damage in the future anyway.
Ding ding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Let me preface this buy saying, I have no delusions that the American government does shady extra legal things. It's part of the territory when you're a government, even more so when you're the superpower basically tasked with the security of your underlings. I know Germany, Canada, and the UK have expressed outrage over this and all over the internet their citizens are quick to claim that they will never do business with America again. Even though their states are perfectly happy with letting the US do their dirty work for them. If your country participated in extraordinary rendition, your country is getting information from the NSA.
I would also like to point out this data mining is really only good for large scale groups and deductive reasoning after they have caught a singular man. Lone wolves will slip though cracks (undoubtedly to the jeers of "CONSPIRACY" to you internet heroes.) while groups that were once large start getting picked off, they will splinter once they get lost among the white noise. It's good in the sense that smaller groups plan smaller attacks due to smaller amounts of resources (generally of course) it's unfortunate in the sense that we will probably have to be dealing with a lot more fertilizer bombs. Of course you get in your car everyday, so I know you're not totally risk averse.
Cyber rights are the next big civil libirties debate. I don't know why it's surprising that the government is doing this stuff. Hell twitter itself is considered public space, obviously your tweets are not the same as your emails or your phone calls. It just goes to illustrate the fact that privacy rights in these spheres are still the wild west and I think a portion of this hand wringing is going because people went crazy with the personal stuff on the cat tubes.
Now to the issue of Snowden himself. Why should I believe a low level IT GED wielding tech guy at some BFE outpost in Honolulu? This is to say nothing of his ridiculous assassination fantasies. I have a couple of power point slides and him claiming he could bug the president. Not to mention he looks like every 28 year old virgin I ever met.
Color me unimpressed with this whole thing
New York Bomb July 4
OMGITSTOATTLYLIKE1984
I will gladly share everything I learned about the comms equipment(or aything else) during my conscript year to anyone who asks.
If I ever get knowledge of any other "national security risks" I'll spill the beans in an instant.
I don't give a crap about either state secrets or national security.
\Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Literally a hero
BRAVO YOU ARE THE NEW CATO
"Hero" is a bourgeouise concept. I just don't give a crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Also, if I can help in any way to make life a little more miserable for our boys in green, I will.
\\Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The bourgeouise is a bourgeouise concept
What are you trying to accomplish by this?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Not trying to make our army more competent and capable, that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Though considering the fact that I'm one of those soldiers, I doubt it's possible to lower the standards any further. But still, there's no harm in trying!
Well considering there are a couple of congressmen trying to get him the death penalty he might have a point, solitary as it may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This doesn't make any sense. What's your goal?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Wasting his majesty's pocket money, as I always have.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Isn't his majesty on a salary? This just sounds very irrational. Is this just a matter of entertainment(?) or a part of some larger plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
"His majesty's pocket money" refers to the defense budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Every krone spent on silliness, is a krone well spent.
But if you waste what's already allocated, won't they just allocate more to make up for your waste? This seems counterproductive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nope, the Norwegian army starts calling off exercises when money is tight. Happened the year before my service, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So, what's the benefit of having an army that is not ready to fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There's no benefit of having an army that is ready to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There's fewer negatives of having an army that's not ready to fight. They'll be less able to kill people, for starters.
So, why resort to sabotage? If you're that committed to Norway without an army, won't it make more sense to start a political movement to promote those goals?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'm already a part of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
In the meantime, I have no qualms about screwing around. If I can make life just a little bit more miserable for just one soldier, I feel I've done a good job.
Why I think Norway can do without an army?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Because I see 35 billion better ways of spending the 35 billion NOK spent on the army.
Won't that discredit your movement? If just one incident like that becomes public, the public opinion will likely turn away from your movement, killing any chance of you ever accomplishing your main goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore