“Snowden Treaty” Proposed To Curtail Mass Surveillance And Protect Whistleblowers

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The International Treaty On The Right To Privacy was unveiled this week to urge changes in mass surveillance. But to echo the byline, will it really change anything?

Signatory states "must consider data protection and the right to privacy in all future programs and policies," while also strengthening the oversight of state surveillance, which is often very weak. They will need to "establish independent national supervision to ensure public transparency and accountability in their surveillance-related activities. They will also commit to undertaking comprehensive reviews of existing surveillance practices every 5 years, with their results made public."
 
The only way this would work is if we all became one nation, with one government.
 
It'd be violated before the ink was even dry.
 
Maybe you guys didn't sense that this was such a dumb idea, lol. It would never work because we are simply human.
 
The USA won't even ratify the latest climate treaties or treaties on human rights and you expect us to ratify one on privacy ...it must be a very beautiful day in your neighborhood Mr Rogers :D
 
I would like to point out the first issue I have with this article, I mean, I don't want to disappoint.

The treaty's proponents say that Snowden's leaks, and the treatment he received as a whistleblower,
Click to expand...

The treatment Ed Snowden recieved as a whistleblower, well, to be honest. In order to be poorly treated as a whistlblower, you have to blow the whistle first, and then be mistreated for it.

He did no such thing. Ed Snowden didn't blow any whistle, he commited treason, espionage if they can prove he intended to do this from the start like he has told the media himself. No William Binney, he was a whistleblower, but not Ed Snowden and that's exactly why he doesn't qualify as a whistleblower under the law. As for his mistreatment, well he hasn't lived in the US one day since he ran from it knowing that his actions would bring penalty, knowing he had violated the law and done things the wrong way.

A "Snowden Treaty" propsed by, you guesssed it, Ed himself, go figure.
 
kbrickley said:
The USA won't even ratify the latest climate treaties or treaties on human rights and you expect us to ratify one on privacy ...it must be a very beautiful day in your neighborhood Mr Rogers :D
Click to expand...

But we did agree to let China do whatever the hell it wants to the environment till 2030....I mean at least we could all finally agree on something right?
 
lcpiper said:
I would like to point out the first issue I have with this article, I mean, I don't want to disappoint.



The treatment Ed Snowden recieved as a whistleblower, well, to be honest. In order to be poorly treated as a whistlblower, you have to blow the whistle first, and then be mistreated for it.

He did no such thing. Ed Snowden didn't blow any whistle, he commited treason, espionage if they can prove he intended to do this from the start like he has told the media himself. No William Binney, he was a whistleblower, but not Ed Snowden and that's exactly why he doesn't qualify as a whistleblower under the law. As for his mistreatment, well he hasn't lived in the US one day since he ran from it knowing that his actions would bring penalty, knowing he had violated the law and done things the wrong way.

A "Snowden Treaty" propsed by, you guesssed it, Ed himself, go figure.
Click to expand...

Gosh I can't think of why he didn't pursue the same channels Binney or Drake used. I mean we had whistleblower laws back then and I guess they worked pretty well for those guys. They still work for the NSA right? It's hard to see any reason why Snowden didn't use the same channels they did.

I think the fact that Snowdens actions made the American public ask for answers from the government and that the "serious discussions" are still going to this day are irrelevant. This isn't about what the American citizens "think" is right. The government made a law and he broke it and that is all that matters. That's all that ever matters.

Only bad people break laws.

If you see something, say something.
 
westrock2000 said:
Gosh I can't think of why he didn't pursue the same channels Binney or Drake used. I mean we had whistleblower laws back then and I guess they worked pretty well for those guys. They still work for the NSA right? It's hard to see any reason why Snowden didn't use the same channels they did.

I think the fact that Snowdens actions made the American public ask for answers from the government and that the "serious discussions" are still going to this day are irrelevant. This isn't about what the American citizens "think" is right. The government made a law and he broke it and that is all that matters. That's all that ever matters.

Only bad people break laws.

If you see something, say something.
Click to expand...


Well, Binney you see went whistleblower, sorta. In a way he half assed it though. See, Binney tried to ask supervisors and express concerns, then he reported his suspicions, (remember, he only had second hand knowledge, he didn't actually have proof cause he didn't actually work on that program), and he wasn't satisfied with the outcome. Then he quit, washed away his retirement, pretty drastic actually. But that's what some people do when they get their ethical back up. They start losing faith in what they used to swear by, start becoming self destructive, start seeing themselves as the only guys who can see straight. Then he really started to lose it, he went outside the approved channels which would be bad while still employed, but really bad now that he had left the service.

Now if you look at this only from the view point that what he was complaining about was in fact illegal, then I guess you would come to the conclusions you have it seems adopted yourself. But if you look at it from the reality that what was done was not illegal and had been directly Authorized by the President, that the departments and agencies he had gone to had looked into his reports and found that his claims were unfounded. Well then you get a different view of Binney. Patriotic, no doubt, ethical, yes, and I would add unfortunately possessed of an unsound and unreasonable delusion.

Look, Binney let himself lose it. He was so sure that people in the Agency were doing something wrong, illegal, that he couldn't believe what should have been plain before his eyes. Don't get the wrong idea here, no one did old William any favors, if they had maybe he would have opened his eyes long enough to see that he was headed in a bad direction. I imagine a little paranoia might have set in, you know, because just asking around trying to learn more about this program was risky and could cost a guy his career anyway. You are not supposed to be digging in places where you are not cleared to go, but he was.

Binney was fixated on EO12333, Reagan had made it pretty clear there were things the NSA and others couldn't be doing. What Binney didn't know was Bush made a few changes. When Binney made his complaints and didn't see any action he assumed it was all a big cover-up and the system was failing him. What he should have recognized was that his complaints of possible illegal activity was unfounded. He should have had some faith that the organizations and agencies trusted with overwatch of the NSA were in fact doing their job properly.

Now I know this isn't your point of view, and it sure wasn't Snowden's cause Binney was a hero to Snowden, a major motivation. And so, Snowden worked and wormed his way into job where he finally was able to steal what he probably is still fully convinced is damning information. I mean it's not like Snowden was working this program and said "Hey, this isn't right, I gota do something". No, from the very earliest beginnings he was trying to dig for proof of illegal activity. He hacked and stole stuff that he still doesn't really know what it is. That's cause he wasn't told what all that stuff was. That's what happens when you get a look at something but you haven't had it properly explained to you just what it is and who says you can do it. It becomes misleading.

Again, Ed never ever tried to report anything properly, some think he had could cause not to. I completely agree, but not for the same reason. See, I feel he had good cause not to report it because it's hard to report wrongdoing when you broke several laws yourself just trying to dig it up. I mean, how do you say that?

"Hey man, look I was just digging around in this database I'm not cleared for and reading some documents that I'm not cleared for and don't have a need to know about and I saw some shit in there man, you guys need to look at these".

See what I mean. It's not like Binney and Drake at all. And then there is this whole thing of giving this stuff to the Russians, just all of it, man. I mean, how do you square that? OK, he took this stuff, illegally, fled the country to China, yes it was Hong Kong, but it was China. And from there he runs to Moscow. And we all believe old Vladamir just let the poor boy inside out of the goodness of his heart and that he didn't demand all the shit Ed stole. And Ed was way too naïve to see it all coming and never thought that his actions would compromise stuff that Ed didn't even know he had to two of America's greatest military rivals.

Uh huh.
 
Do you ever get tired of sucking off the government? How much do they pay you to spew your "government knows best" bullshit? How about you stop cheerleading the fact that our government ignores or changes laws, without the people it is supposed to be serving being told a fucking thing? Oh wait, let me guess, you are just going to spout more of your "government knows best and does everything legally" right?
 
lcpiper said:
I would like to point out the first issue I have with this article, I mean, I don't want to disappoint.



The treatment Ed Snowden recieved as a whistleblower, well, to be honest. In order to be poorly treated as a whistlblower, you have to blow the whistle first, and then be mistreated for it.

He did no such thing. Ed Snowden didn't blow any whistle, he commited treason, espionage if they can prove he intended to do this from the start like he has told the media himself. No William Binney, he was a whistleblower, but not Ed Snowden and that's exactly why he doesn't qualify as a whistleblower under the law. As for his mistreatment, well he hasn't lived in the US one day since he ran from it knowing that his actions would bring penalty, knowing he had violated the law and done things the wrong way.

A "Snowden Treaty" propsed by, you guesssed it, Ed himself, go figure.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, and people in your government are guilty of war crimes. Arrest them now and prove you are a patriot!!!! :rolleyes:
 
darkstarcow said:
Do you ever get tired of sucking off the government? How much do they pay you to spew your "government knows best" bullshit? How about you stop cheerleading the fact that our government ignores or changes laws, without the people it is supposed to be serving being told a fucking thing? Oh wait, let me guess, you are just going to spout more of your "government knows best and does everything legally" right?
Click to expand...

I don't say that at all. If you think that's the case then you don't actually read what I write. There are plenty of things the government does that I don't agree with just like there are many things the Army has done I don't agree with. But that doesn't detract one bit from what I disagree with when it comes to the media, disgruntled groups of do-gooders, etc.

Just because I attack Ed Snowden and anyone's misguided concept that Ed is some sort of hero or saint. It does not mean that I agree with and support everything the government does. And just to be accurate here, when did I ever say the government knows best about anything?

Saying the government ignores or changes laws, wow, well since it's their job to make the laws I suppose we shouldn't be too upset when they actually are able to pull it off on occasion. Changing them, same thing, it's in the job description. Oh, but you said, without the people being told right...

Well, EO12333 wasn't a law, but laws were written based on Reagan's Order. Bushes War Powers letter didn't actually change any law, what it did was allow an exception to EO12333, this also didn't provide an exception to the law but it did provide an exception to the order and specificly allowed the NSA to do things that normally wouldn't be allowed by their own rules. But hey, that's all technical stuff, you don't care about any of that.

You just want to have your hero right? It's OK, someone has to love him I guess. It's your choice. I just want to make sure you know just who it is your holding up as an inspiration.
 
lcpiper said:
I don't say that at all. If you think that's the case then you don't actually read what I write. There are plenty of things the government does that I don't agree with just like there are many things the Army has done I don't agree with. But that doesn't detract one bit from what I disagree with when it comes to the media, disgruntled groups of do-gooders, etc.

Just because I attack Ed Snowden and anyone's misguided concept that Ed is some sort of hero or saint. It does not mean that I agree with and support everything the government does. And just to be accurate here, when did I ever say the government knows best about anything?

Saying the government ignores or changes laws, wow, well since it's their job to make the laws I suppose we shouldn't be too upset when they actually are able to pull it off on occasion. Changing them, same thing, it's in the job description. Oh, but you said, without the people being told right...

Well, EO12333 wasn't a law, but laws were written based on Reagan's Order. Bushes War Powers letter didn't actually change any law, what it did was allow an exception to EO12333, this also didn't provide an exception to the law but it did provide an exception to the order and specificly allowed the NSA to do things that normally wouldn't be allowed by their own rules. But hey, that's all technical stuff, you don't care about any of that.

You just want to have your hero right? It's OK, someone has to love him I guess. It's your choice. I just want to make sure you know just who it is your holding up as an inspiration.
Click to expand...

That does change my opinion of you somewhat, though I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion when it comes to laws and whether we believe they can or should be bent/broken/changed at a whim, sometimes secretly, all in the name of "security."

I dont think Snowden is a hero, I think he did a lot of good by showing just what kind of shit goes on behind closed doors in the government in the name of "security." I will say I respect Snowden a lot more than the government considering he at least opened the publics eyes to just how fuck our government is.
 
Nor should we. Global warming is bullshit. The climate changes because it is a living unit... the earth will adapt as it always has. Human rights treaties only make it harder to send in drones to annihilate terrorists. We do not need to consider their human rights because they are not human. We just need to figure out a way to turn the middle east (minus Israel) into glass and the suck it dry for oil.

kbrickley said:
The USA won't even ratify the latest climate treaties or treaties on human rights and you expect us to ratify one on privacy ...it must be a very beautiful day in your neighborhood Mr Rogers :D
Click to expand...
 
As for these latest Treaties all I know is there has been a tendency for them to cross the boundry between international relations and a nation's sovereignty. If that is the case here then I understand fully why the US would tell them to piss off. I think one of those human rights treaties tried to have Cluster Munitions outlawed. Those are damned effective at area effect destruction. Sometimes the submunitions can fail to detonate and if molested could seriously kill someone. I understand why some people would want us to stop using them, but it's not happening. The weapon is way too effective at it's purpose. If a single canister deploys 80 submunitions and two fail to detonate then that will be seen as acceptable levels of risk. In most cases all the subs will detonate, occasionally you get duds. You drop a dozen in an area you'll get a few duds. My understanding is it's the poor people in the area that look over these areas for salvage, mess with the subs and sometimes get hurt. It sucks, I will agree, but we aren't about to give up a weapon system that is so effective for it's purpose. If one of these cluster bombs can do the work of six regular bombs then that means you need fewer planes to do the work, you risk fewer aircraft and their pilots, more aircraft are available for other missions, our airpower is leveraged more effectively and makes a greater difference in our overall effort. If this brings a conflict to an end faster then the fighting can stop sooner and the killing can end sooner. I'll leave it up to you guys to do your own math and decide if a few unintended victims of war measures well against ending a conflict that could be killing several times their number every day.
 
lcpiper said:
As for these latest Treaties all I know is there has been a tendency for them to cross the boundry between international relations and a nation's sovereignty. If that is the case here then I understand fully why the US would tell them to piss off. I think one of those human rights treaties tried to have Cluster Munitions outlawed. Those are damned effective at area effect destruction. Sometimes the submunitions can fail to detonate and if molested could seriously kill someone. I understand why some people would want us to stop using them, but it's not happening. The weapon is way too effective at it's purpose. If a single canister deploys 80 submunitions and two fail to detonate then that will be seen as acceptable levels of risk. In most cases all the subs will detonate, occasionally you get duds. You drop a dozen in an area you'll get a few duds. My understanding is it's the poor people in the area that look over these areas for salvage, mess with the subs and sometimes get hurt. It sucks, I will agree, but we aren't about to give up a weapon system that is so effective for it's purpose. If one of these cluster bombs can do the work of six regular bombs then that means you need fewer planes to do the work, you risk fewer aircraft and their pilots, more aircraft are available for other missions, our airpower is leveraged more effectively and makes a greater difference in our overall effort. If this brings a conflict to an end faster then the fighting can stop sooner and the killing can end sooner. I'll leave it up to you guys to do your own math and decide if a few unintended victims of war measures well against ending a conflict that could be killing several times their number every day.
Click to expand...

I kinda got lost in this post around "...if molested could seriously kill someone..." and started wondering if there was like a "...if molested could lovingly kill someone..." version of cluster munitions instead. That'd be kinda cool.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I kinda got lost in this post around "...if molested could seriously kill someone..." and started wondering if there was like a "...if molested could lovingly kill someone..." version of cluster munitions instead. That'd be kinda cool.
Click to expand...

Who is out there molesting small munitions? Please for the love of god and country save the small munitions!!!
 
westrock2000 said:
Only bad people break laws.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wonder how many laws you must have broken without knowledge.

Btw being in a law doesn't make it ethical , and since it was legal to own slaves, for example, then in your eyes those that fought against it, basically fighting against the law, were they Bad People? i ask because they used violence instead of trying to go through some peaceful, lawful, way around it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top