Eric Snowden

Yep

ahh the fallacy of giving up freedom in exchange for safety . . .

After a tragic incident occurs and people cry out for safety, the government responds by placing more limitations on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

Since criminals, by definition, don’t/won’t abide by the government-imposed limitations; can anyone explain how this makes us more safe ?

I am so amused with the hypocrisy this nation exhibits. First you have people screaming and demanding privacy, then there is a mass shooting and the biggest question is why didn’t someone search out and monitor this person. Then after the shock and dust settles, we go back to not wanting any intrusion. I’m going fishing.

Quote:

---

While I personally feel bad for what happened to her on an individual basis, here is my overall take. If I were a terrorist and was watching the patterns of the TS A and notice& they never searched 60 year old white women, that would be my goal finding one to subvert the security system either with them knowing or unknowingly. If I were to analyze their procedures and see that nobody is safe from search, that would make it harder. Also remember that the TS A isn’t just searching for bombs, but also other contraband.

---

You’d think they’d be doing that anyway, they aren’t all secular brainless morons, since a middle eastern man is the most likely candidate to be monitored, yet we’ve yet to see anything other than a middle eastern men trying to blow up planes.

So it is ok to search and interrogate people randomly without probable cause, hoping to find contraband? sounds like a lovely world I would like to live in. They should give cops the same tools. How about the DNR with random boat inspections. Maybe the government should be allowed to randomly search homes, then we can keep terrorists from setting up shop in an apartment or safe house.

So do people think Edward Snowden is an idiot. He is all ready GUILTY if he sets foot on american soil. The trial would be a joke. I know Kerry would like to get his hands on him, so he should come back an face the music (ya right). looks to me like NSA under estiamated this guy & Russia is not going to deport him. What does that tell ya.

As of today there has not be one serviceman or spy lost that could be traced to what Snowden leaked.

If nothing else the procedures at NSA, CIA, FBI, and all the other alphabet soups will be tightened and reviewed.

This is only my personal opinion, but when a person, including myself is in public and involved in utilizing mass transit or crowded venues there should be no expectation of privacy.

How does a hard line phone differ from a cell phone? The courts have ruled a warrant is needed to tap a telephone. If you believe Snowden the NSA can monitor all cell phone calls and images on smartphones.

Quote:

---

As of today there has not be one serviceman or spy lost that could be traced to what Snowden leaked.

If nothing else the procedures at NSA, CIA, FBI, and all the other alphabet soups will be tightened and reviewed.

---

Do you honestly belive that we are being given all the facts surrounding this issue or the others that have been exposed? This area of intelligence is fraught with misinformation. The final impact may never be divulged.

Quote:

---

This is only my personal opinion, but when a person, including myself is in public and involved in utilizing mass transit or crowded venues there should be no expectation of privacy.

---

So when should the fourth amendment be applicable?
Only when you’re on your own private property?

Facts from who? The government will spin it and so will Snowden. No, facts will be the last thing exposed in this deal.

Quote:

---

Facts from who? The government will spin it and so will Snowden. No, facts will be the last thing exposed in this deal.

---

Fully agree.

If there was anything tragic linked to Snowden, they would have it plastered all over the media, so far I have not herd of anything. Where does the federal government or NSA suppose to draw the line on invasion of privacy.

Quote:

---

If there was anything tragic linked to Snowden, they would have it plastered all over the media, so far I have not herd of anything. Where does the federal government or NSA suppose to draw the line on invasion of privacy.

---

That’s the million dollar question that has been debated since this country’s birth, and I suspect will be debated for generations to come.

While people want this to be an easy-peasy, black/white issue, as some others have said, I see it as a shade of gray.

The question is really TWO questions to me:

1. Do I agree with his motives? He had uncovered what he sees (and I see) as an unconstitutional and illegal government program designed to conduct warrantless searches and he felt compelled to expose this.

2. Do I agree with HOW he went about this? No. However…

Currently, when it comes to national security information, I’m wondering if there IS a legal “whistleblower” option?

My suspicion is NO. So the government basically current has a get out of jail free card. Whatever dirty, unconstitutional program the NSA, CIA, FBI, or HSA wants to cook up in the name of “anti-terrorism” security then becomes untouchable because anyone who blows the whistle is branded as a traitor for violating national security.

Nice little Catch 22 there, eh? No matter HOW illegal something may be, anyone who exposes it can be branded a traitor and given a one-way ticket to Gitmo because it doesn’t matter if the acts were illegal, you committed a crime by exposing them.

To me, that paradox alone violates the due process clause of the Constitution. Essentially, you can commit a crime by calling the police to report a crime.

What we need is an independent court that hears whistleblower cases where top secret programs or information are involved. But we won’t get it because this would reverse a long trend of the Executive Branch grabbing more and more power in the name of “security”.

Grouse

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Where does the federal government or NSA suppose to draw the line on invasion of privacy.

---

That’s the million dollar question that has been debated since this country’s birth, and I suspect will be debated for generations to come.

---

We once fought a civil war after 11 states seceded because they thought the federal government was overextending its power … If we don’t learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.

Quote:

---

While people want this to be an easy-peasy, black/white issue, as some others have said, I see it as a shade of gray.

The question is really TWO questions to me:

1. Do I agree with his motives? He had uncovered what he sees (and I see) as an unconstitutional and illegal government program designed to conduct warrantless searches and he felt compelled to expose this.

2. Do I agree with HOW he went about this? No. However…

Currently, when it comes to national security information, I’m wondering if there IS a legal “whistleblower” option?

My suspicion is NO. So the government basically current has a get out of jail free card. Whatever dirty, unconstitutional program the NSA, CIA, FBI, or HSA wants to cook up in the name of “anti-terrorism” security then becomes untouchable because anyone who blows the whistle is branded as a traitor for violating national security.

Nice little Catch 22 there, eh? No matter HOW illegal something may be, anyone who exposes it can be branded a traitor and given a one-way ticket to Gitmo because it doesn’t matter if the acts were illegal, you committed a crime by exposing them.

To me, that paradox alone violates the due process clause of the Constitution. Essentially, you can commit a crime by calling the police to report a crime.

What we need is an independent court that hears whistleblower cases where top secret programs or information are involved. But we won’t get it because this would reverse a long trend of the Executive Branch grabbing more and more power in the name of “security”.

Grouse

---

Grouse you nailed it!

My guess is no matter what he did or how he did it he would be branded a traitor under the all encompassing Patriot Act. Under the Patriot Act they can throw away the key without even running you through the court system.

Quote:

---

This is only my personal opinion, but when a person, including myself is in public and involved in utilizing mass transit or crowded venues there should be no expectation of privacy.

---

Privacy or search and seizure? In the public there are different expectations of privacy.

So you and your significant other are boarding a plane. The TSA pulls her off. She is questioned, possibly strip search for an hour or two. Now you missed your flight. All for the common good?

That’s why they say get to the airport early.

I guess what I don’t understand is that everyone opposed to government surveillance seems to believe this is new, or a product of the current administration… While that may be a convenient excuse if you are opposed to the current admin, fine. But it doesn’t make it true. Governments have been tampering with the lives of their citizens since the beginning of time… and probably before that… its how they maintain power. If they don’t… you end up with the Congo, or any number of African countries that swap out control every few years.
If Oog wanted to keep control of the tribe, he probably had to bash in Grog’s head to show the tribe he was not to be challenged. We act like this newfangled government monitoring is going to change our lives… Uh no… you’re just PO’d cuz now you know a little more about it. The truth is you DON’t and WON’T know. Snowden has to keep himself in the headlines because as soon as people look away… he’s dead… regardless of what country he is in. Regardless of what you think of him… his fate has been decided the moment he opened his mouth, same as it has been for centuries. Its not this administration or the last or the next…

while I agree it’s true MOST Governments have USUALLY been that way, the rub is; many of us believe OUR Government SHOULD be DIFFERENT

I understand that… but its NEVER been that way… and NEVER will be regardless of what party ends up in the Whitehouse.

Its a trust thing. Cripes we still have the Electoral College… something put in place because our beloved forefathers… simply didn’t trust the citizens. Governments don’t, won’t, and can’t fully trust their own people.

Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but humans do not. They move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

I take offence, I am no cancer, I am a parasite!

Quote:

---

Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but humans do not. They move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

---

Well at least it’s Friday

Quote:

---

I take offence, I am no cancer, I am a parasite!

---

Insect!!!

Just seemed time for a Matrix quote.

PBS just recently aired a 2 part episode of Frontline that focused on the NSA and Snowden. I highly recommend watching it if you haven’t already.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one—the-program

Lets go back in history a few years, anyone remember J Edgar Hoover, he wanted a complete history of everyone and I mean everyone, even my grandmother, he wanted a history on everybody in America even though they hadn’t done anything wrong, Hoover was a paranoid nutcase and everybody knew it. Plus he was so powerful that many in our government stayed as far away from him as they could Because he was that powerful and underhanded. Then others took his place, after he died, it makes me wonder if things have really changed at all, or even gotten worse.

Suppose we go to our allies and ask about a surveillance program we want to put into effect, what are they going to say now, are they going to stand beside us or ask whats involved or under what conditions keeping one eye open just to watch our NSA at the same time. I hope its not a continuation of the hoover era, if it is were in big trouble. Doesn’t anyone stand up for,,,its none of their damned business. We’ve all been told that the programs that the NSA designed were looking for certain words and paragraphs, certain word processions, then why did Snowden say he kept the most sensitive information to be seen by just certain eyes,,,Because its probably so sensitive no one in the world would trust us. I’m going to read between the lines on this one and say its worse then we think. I’m not being critical, I’m just being realistic. I’m all for national security and so are other countries just as much as us, but when were invading heads of other governments privacy I say somethings wrong.

Some will say that they have to see the evidence before they are convinced the NSA is doing something wrong, and that’s fine but if the evidence is that critical does anyone think their going to see any of it if its real sensitive. I’m all for national security but there has to be limits on surveillance of certain people and certain governments, especially our allies. Alot of people know how powerful computers are and the brilliant minds behind them, I think the NSA is and has been using them to their max, why stop?.

The pbs program frontline was very interesting and worth watching. May change how some people feel.

I just watched the first part of a 2 part series, It is definitely worth watching, the first part is around 2 hrs long but worth it, The second part I’ll watch tomorrow.