Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NSA Whistleblower: Hero or Villain

48 posts in this topic

Posted

Just think how campaigns will be held in the future.

Already allegations that Romney doners were leaked to press and IRS scrutiny.

Not good if the folks in power use their agencies to squash opposition. Kinda third worldish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

aside from this guy- is anyone actually surprised the gov. has been doing this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I understand correctly everything I've heard/read, this reminds me a lot of SOPA and a general disturbing trend in our law making.  The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is going away.  If we ignore the implied scenarios and look at what's actually happening, the NSA is collecting all this data 'just in case' which means they are presuming everyone is guilty and might need that data in the future.  This is the same thing SOPA was trying to do - if someone reports a site for pirating, the default action is to shut down the site until it can be proven the claim is wrong.  It's a slap in the face to proper burden of proof.  

 

I think everyone agrees that law enforcement/intelligence agencies should be able to tap into communications of the Tony Sopranos of the world, but only if they have a damn good reason to do so.  Right now they are collecting data from millions of innocent people and it's clearly a violation of the 4th amendment.  This should go to the SCOTUS and be shot down, but the overall disregard of the concept of presumption of innocence is much more troubling to me.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As this story lingers on, I think the question should be, " Is he a traitor, hero, or an example that's about to be made for all other whistleblowers?" & if so what does that mean for the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be a whistleblower you have to expose something.

 

Every politician trying to use this as a soapbox has known exactly how this has worked since it was implemented.

 

The facts as I understand them so far is that the NSA keeps records of numbers that are making calls, mostly because they feel they need that data longer than the phone companies store it, so it there is some kind of wrongdoing they go to the judge, get a court order, then look up the phone data for the individual and see if it can make any connections.

 

The rest is allegations, or slippery slope arguments, which are fine, but so far no one has released anything showing that a specific individual was illegally monitored.

 

When the Patriot Act was being considered, this is the argument I made, that it could be taken too far by a paranoid government agency. I was ignored. Now that Obama is in office, its suddenly some kind of terrible thing.

 

The majority of the American public seems to feel that this is an acceptable way to help minimize the risk of terrorist attacks, and I am inclined to agree - IF it's being used properly. So far we have no concrete evidence that it has been abused.

 

Although a few people have complained that this program did nothing to help prevent Boston, I did read that there were two instances where this program aided in convicting two cases of terror plots - which if you think about what it does and how it works, makes perfect sense in that it's an "after the fact" use case.

 

I am always glad to see things like this get attention, lets see what Congress does with it. Answer: probably nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are proper chanel for "whistleblowing".   Stupid SOB will pay the price. And should. I do not want big brother watching me.  Nor do I want people publishing government secrets.  Bush or Obami.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be a whistleblower you have to expose something.

 

Every politician trying to use this as a soapbox has known exactly how this has worked since it was implemented.

 

The facts as I understand them so far is that the NSA keeps records of numbers that are making calls, mostly because they feel they need that data longer than the phone companies store it, so it there is some kind of wrongdoing they go to the judge, get a court order, then look up the phone data for the individual and see if it can make any connections.

 

The rest is allegations, or slippery slope arguments, which are fine, but so far no one has released anything showing that a specific individual was illegally monitored.

 

When the Patriot Act was being considered, this is the argument I made, that it could be taken too far by a paranoid government agency. I was ignored. Now that Obama is in office, its suddenly some kind of terrible thing.

 

The majority of the American public seems to feel that this is an acceptable way to help minimize the risk of terrorist attacks, and I am inclined to agree - IF it's being used properly. So far we have no concrete evidence that it has been abused.

 

Although a few people have complained that this program did nothing to help prevent Boston, I did read that there were two instances where this program aided in convicting two cases of terror plots - which if you think about what it does and how it works, makes perfect sense in that it's an "after the fact" use case.

 

I am always glad to see things like this get attention, lets see what Congress does with it. Answer: probably nothing.

 

 

my understanding is that this program's assistance in the discovery of those two plots has been roundly disproven... I've been around here as long as you have, I was against this when it first started and i'm just as against it now... While i agree that there are a lot of slippery slope arguments being thrown around, i think they have a little more merit when you can literally feel us sliding down said slope.  This is a very big issue...  and while you critique others for saying nothing when bush was in office, i haven't seen you take obama to task.

 

this is not the time to disagree with each-other over petty nonsense.  We actually (for once) all pretty much agree with each-other about this.  Lets act like it instead of nitpicking each-other about who was right first.

 

 

damn NSA hipsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It wasnt cool when this was happening to MlK, X or the other civil rights leaders in the 60's and it damn sure isnt kosher now. There is no fuging slippery slope. That's bullshit. Unless they have a warrant, it is illegal. That's it, case closed, move along. I don't give two flying fugs what the career politicians signed into law. Ay law that is in direct violation of the constitution is null and void.

Simple.

And.

Plain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It wasnt cool when this was happening to MlK, X or the other civil rights leaders in the 60's and it damn sure isnt kosher now. There is no fuging slippery slope. That's bullshit. Unless they have a warrant, it is illegal. That's it, case closed, move along. I don't give two flying fugs what the career politicians signed into law. Ay law that is in direct violation of the constitution is null and void.

Simple.

And.

Plain.

 

Wednesday, 27 February 2013 17:00

Supreme Court Throws Out Challenge to Government Electronic Surveillance

It has been over a decade since the American people were placed under the never-blinking, ever-watchful eye of the federal government in the name of national security. Not once has there been a successful challenge to the body of federal acts that created this situation. The Fourth Amendment has been legislatively repealed and Presidents Bush and Obama signed off on it. Now, with the rejection of this latest legal challenge, the Supreme Court has joined the crew demolishing the Bill of Rights and constructing the surveillance state on top of the rubble.

 

 

By a 5-4 decision on Tuesday, the court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of government wiretaps and monitoring of citizens’ e-mails, telephone calls, and electronic messages. Those targeted for the surveillance are not suspected of committing any crime, so searching their communications is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....”

The case before the court was Clapper v. Amnesty International.

 

The likely effect of this decision, the New York Times reports, will be that “the Supreme Court will never rule on the constitutionality of that 2008 law.”

The law in question is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments (FISA) passed by Congress in 2008. FISA was recently renewed by Congress and will not expire until 2017

 

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

 

This policy is such a shameful disregard for our long history of individual-based human and civil rights (including the Fourth Amendment) that it shocks the conscience even when the source is considered.

 

Tuesday’s decision, however, strengthens the federal government’s position and all but guarantees that its drive to make every citizen a suspect will accelerate.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14638-supreme-court-throws-out-challenge-to-government-electronic-surveillance

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, if the NSA is doing nothing wrong, then it has nothing to fear from these breaches of its privacy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He is neither. He is a guy that made the decision to do something illegal for his beliefs.

Now he has come out to try and reap the benefits and become the Martin Luther King of internet data mining.

no one cares what happens to an unrecognizable face or name, but with him coming it it's kind of a form of protection from prosecution for himself, not only did he do a big no no but he also did the one thing to protect himself the most right away.

 

he may reap some benefits but he's just being smart about what he's done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

no one cares what happens to an unrecognizable face or name, but with him coming it it's kind of a form of protection from prosecution for himself, not only did he do a big no no but he also did the one thing to protect himself the most right away.

he may reap some benefits but he's just being smart about what he's done

Oh yeah. I totally agree it was the smart thing to do. I think I even said something similar to you somewhere else in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites