Justice for Snowden ?

Thanks KB. But Snowden has put that subject in more subtle way (see below) - he deserves the highest US honor, not punishment. He should run a campaign for the president of USA, not Hillary Clinton or Trump. Snowden is the right choice. Please read this on those who think they have “nothing to hide”:

It’s not about not having something to hide; it’s about having something to lose. What we lose when we’re under observation is our humanity. What shapes us, what makes us individuals, is the fact that we can think, we can develop.

Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide, is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say, or the freedom of press because you’re not a journalist, or the freedom of religion because you’re not a Christian. Rights in societies are collective, and individual. You can’t give away the rights of a minority, even if you vote as a majority. Rights are inherent to our nature, they’re not granted by governments, they’re guaranteed by governments. They’re protected by governments.

Edward Snowden
in recent interview with Lena Sundström and Lotta Härdelin

 

Good choice mate but what you usually get are fake.

 

For those who want to hear more, this is a LINK to the complete Snowden's interview with Lena Sundström and Lotta Härdelin. PS: that web page is a bit clumsy arranged - you have to scroll down a bit to start reading.

Enjoy reading. It's a good stuff, not mainstream garbage.

 

Here you go Tamino my friend, some info about the NSA, the snope and poopers we all know and love.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-nsa-school-how-the-intelligence-community-gets-smarter-secretly/ar-CC8A7Q?li=AAa0dzB

 

You are wong here, Anonymous and other similar groups don't have 1% of the resources the NSA has so pose a much smaller threat, especially as both groups basically show no restraints. There is no possibility of Anonymous creating multi petabytes databasaes that are then used to create "chartacter assasination" or disinformation campaingns and strong evidence the NSA is doing just that. Information warfare by government funded but unsupervised organisations (the existing controls are obviously too weak to work ) are much more of a worry than a bunch of cyber punks.

BTW the NSA mission included protecting US information assets, they failed completely there and one reason for that is that they concentrated of offensive warfare reatrher than defence, even going to the extreme of sabotaging efforts at creating effective security. Had they used that huge amount of money and skills at their disposals for developing defence groups like Anonymous would have a much tougher going. Cyber defence is a lot more difficult than offence, but the NSA has 1000 times more resources than a hackers team can cobble together. The reason they went for offence is probably the same issue IT security professionals face every day, a successful espionage coup value is evident, fouling 1000 attacks is "nothithig happened so why are you asking for more money?".

Had the US put Gen. Alexander on trial, he was the one responsible for the NSA's behaviour, Snowden just revealead them, we could have a reasonable expectation of a fair trial, but it didn't happen. Looking at the very questianable Assange and Manning legal proceedings I don't think Snowden would get a fair trial, the Assange accusations especially stink of fabrication from a mile away.

 

That's not particularly accurate nor does it look at the overall picture. NSA actually is forced to accept a lot of constraints. Certainly they have a larger budget but they also have a lot more mandated functions. Nor are they particularly interested in what most individuals are doing. Indeed they don't even look at content from what I understand unless certain flags are raised. Anonymous and similar groups on the other hand have no such constraints. In some cases they have also demonstrated absolutly no concern for the well being of individuals as well. Indeed some of the various hacker groups are actually preying on individuals.

So what? Most of the multi petabyte data bases contain so little signal that it's almost non existent. Advanced data analysis tools are required to pull any signal from it at all. The Hacker groups on the other hand can focus on individuals or whatever they are interested in. They don't need huge data bases to be dangerous.

Only if you are someone they are interested in. Currently that means a terrorist or some one in a foreign intelligence agency or something similar. They aren't even going after many criminals. For the average individual the cyber punk is far more likly to be a problem. I've known a number of people that have had their accounts hacked. Cyber punks or their like not government agencies. Whether the controls are too weak is another open question. As they were when Snowden worked for them possibly as they are now less likely. Remember Snowden didn't exercise all of his internal options before he went outside of proper channels.

It may be listed as one of their functions but they didn't have the authority to do much about it. They had both the authority and the tasking to gather the intel they did. You are concentrating way too much on their budget without looking at their tasking and how they can and must spend it.

???? That is rediculous. The legal proceedings todate have almost no bearing on Assange or Snowden getting a fair trial. The Manning case doesn't either as he was tried in a court martial rather than a civilian court furthermore it was quite clear that his conviction was justified. As for putting Alexander on trial, it's my understanding that there was at least some legal opinions that what the NSA did was legal. This was later brought to question but if the people who developed the program thought they were following the rules, especially with a legal opinion on the matter, I'm not sure charging any of them with a crime is justified. Nor do I see how that impacts the expectation of a fair trial.

 

A court martial behind closed doors is not my definition of a "fair trial", though it probably is legal which is not a good reference for US justice and more than sufficient reason for Snowden not to trust it.

Note that I'm not stating Manning was innocent, but that he didn't get a fair trial. IMO according to the letter of the law he was guilty, though morally he comes out as much more "on the side of light" than his accusers.

"Some legal opinions" in my book means a trial is necessary to clarify. The facts are Alexander didn't go on trial though there is enough evidence to suspect he is guilty of breaking quite a number of laws and he did more damage to the US international image than Manning, Assange and Snowden put together.
Not putting him on trial looks like "political" damage control rather than a respect of justice, it might have worked with US internal opinion but internationally it was a disaster as it basically transferred the guilt from the individual to USA. The recent EEC court declaration that the "safe harbour" agreement as void as under current US practices US companies cannot be trusted with confidential data is just the tip of the iceberg.

The argument that the NSA "didn't have the authority" to develop cyber defence while they had the "authority" to do what they actually did is simply hilarious. They might not have the authority to act directly against hacktivists but acting is not the issue as it can be left to the courts, it's developing counters to the attacks and finding means of identifying the perpetrators that is the NSA's task, a task for which traditional LA is not well equipped.

Indiscriminate collection of data is not as harmless as you believe, the justification "it will only be used to fight terrorism" is a smokescreen contradicted by the facts, there are documented instances of US electronic intelligence data being turned over to private companies (basically industrial espionage) and of NSA employees using them for personal goals. Once the data has been collected it's hugely difficult to limit what it's going to be used for, and keeping the details of the data collection "secret" means any control is likely top fail.
How much is leaked to damage the reputation of people the people who control the data not like is a matter for conjecture, but "leaked" eMails have been part of the political offensive arsenal for years now.
Large databases under shady control will also completely skew the normal legal system, it is easy to find some "facts" against anybody by taking information out of context and unless the defence has the same access to the data, which is impossible with "secret" programmes ..... make your own conclusions.

 

Courts Martial are likely as fair as open civilian trials. They are also appealable. IMO your rather off base in this regard.

How so? He released classified information to Wikileaks. How is this morally correct? Especially since he apparently made no protest as to its classification or attempt to use legal chanels to do so. He took an oath and broke it. Not sure the public had any immediate need to know either.

Nope that's not how it works. You ask the lawyers. They either say "it's legal", "it's not legal", or "I need further opinion". If they say it's legal then you've done what you are suppose to do and can proceed. Now the lawyer maybe subject to censor if he can't justify his decision but that's a different matter. Even if higher authority at some point concludes he is wrong as long as he has a reasonable justification he wouldn't be subject to legal action.

Care to produce said evidence? By the way damaging the US image isn't a crime. Assange actually enhanced it more than he damaged it from what I've read. On the otherhand he put peoples lives at risk when there was absolutely no need to.

Saying so makes it clear, especially in the light of statements above, that you think he is guilty of crimes that don't exist in the US. I certainly have not seen a compelling case for bringing him to trial especially as a conviction would be highly unlikely.

They didn't and still don't have the authority to exercise control over computers in most government offices much less those outside the government. Further there are "color" of money issues. In the US governement if an organization recieves a certain budget it's not free to spend it however it wants to. Much of it will already be ear marked for certain tasks and it is often difficult or impossible to repurpose it. At that point in time the priority was given to the war on terror and thats where their main effort went. That priority was assigned from the top of the food chain. Note that they aren't the only one agency with an interest in cyber security and indeed some of the others have the same or very similar tasks. In addition the NSA has since it's inception been dedicated to gathering electronic data and analyzing the same. That's their remit and that's what they are comfortable with.

The data is already being collected. It's out there. Further more there is so much of it that it requires sophisticated data reduction programs to get much of anything from it. True it is subject to misuse but narrower collection tools would be as well. French intellignece agents used to collect data on US firms all the time and give it to French firms. The head of their intel network even justified it as legitmate at one point. There may be some links between US intell networks and private companies but they aren't as close as the French ones much less the Russian or Chinese. As for it skewing the legal system in the US it is illegal for the prosecution not to share the facts with the defence. Not that I've seen anything about this data actually being used in court except for terrorism trials and even then I'm not certain it's been used. Bottom line is the data is out there and people are using it. To act like they aren't is simply bearing your head in the sand. I'd rather it be in the hands of people with at least some constraints than not.

 

"Your a lesbian?" - no. Thought about becoming one though.
"I am glad to see that you have advanced to using multi-syllable words."- thanks, i guess.
"Wait...How many lesbians are you hiding?" - dead or alive?...i kid, i kid...possess no lesbians.
"Good choice mate but what you usually get are fake."- ok by me, just as long as no dudes involved. Most real lesbos look like Hillary/Huma...both as twisted as anthony weiner, or Bill Clinton. Twisted sexual predators.
Wow, lesbian talk is powerful, derailing this thread and all.

It's the folks in power who need to fear snooping. Glad that the threat of exposure may alter job performance in those who are charged with our well being.

 

As usually, you're so refreshing, original, genuine, irrepetible ... a real Poppy
Indeed! I prefer pretty fake lesbos over the real junk. What the Hell should I care about their real orientation. All things that really matter in a life are our illusions, our expectations, our wishes, so let illusions be pleasant. All what matters is that "lesbos" fit into my aesthetic criteria: young, stunning doll, tall, nice, breathtakng etc. etc. And Bill may have his Hillary if he still wants her or Ms. Lewinski.