Identity of Whistleblower Behind NSA Leak Revealed

[Dayaks]

Am I the only one that assumed the government was doing this? When I heard the govt was monitoring everything it bothered me to have it confirmed, but in no way surprised me. I am actually surprised it took them this long!

 

[Thuleman]

FWIW, I think that the whole Wikileaks stuff was total BS and releasing all those diplomatic cables shouldn't have been done, hope Assange rots in hell.

Having said that, what Edward Snowden did was to tell the American people just how exactly the government is spying on them every single second of every single day. In my book that makes Snowden a hero.

This is a democracy, let the people decide with how much surveillance they are willing to put up with in the name of preventing terrorist attacks. Let the people also decide whether they want to re-elect politicians who signed off on this. For those two things to happen the people need to at least know what's happening to them.

Snowden did the morally right thing, even if it is criminal. At the end of the day people have to be able to live with the choices they made, and he did right by himself and the American people. Good for him and us.

 

[Gman1979]

After double checking a few things, I'm now more confident in my opinion of why he chose to flee to Hong Kong. Anywhere he had chosen to go would have eventually given him up to U.S. authorities.

He can indeed by extradited from there. This may be what he wishes to force the USA to do because once he is in the public legal system, he has rights and access to legal council. If he had chosen a country where extraordinary rendition via black op was an option, he may never have seen the inside of a public court room once being labeled a threat to national security and deemed suitable for indefinite detention.

 

[Red Squirrel]

A true hero. I wish him well. He'll most likely have to go live on another planet to be safe from the US though. They will get him eventually.

 

[redoulent]

I don't know why everyone has there panties in a bunch over this... The machine only spits out the social security numbers of threats to national security and people in danger.... Seems legit to me

 

[ekuest]

I don't know why everyone has there panties in a bunch over this... The machine only spits out the social security numbers of threats to national security and people in danger.... Seems legit to me

then jim caviezal hunts them down and kills them before they can blow up your babies! problem solved!

 

[Gman1979]

I don't know why everyone has there panties in a bunch over this... The machine only spits out the social security numbers of threats to national security and people in danger.... Seems legit to me

The information he revealed was about programs that are relatively benign compared to some of the other things going on. The entire PRISM program is just a framework for the NSA to have user information handed over to them from the owners of private networks owned by corporations in exchange for giving them (the corps) immunity from civil litigation for doing so. Basically the same information you usually consent to allowing companies to use for marketing to you based on the services you use and products you buy for example.

Any information being sent out across public networks was already being collected without our consent. Funny how this part never got any news attention even when former intelligence officials, from several government agencies, testified about it before congress, yet the moment the NSA labels this guy a defector and traitor it's all over the news; and no one bothers reporting on the more nefarious data accumulation being done against American citizens.

 

[Conker]

There is a shadow government. Believe it or live in ignorance. NSA is collecting everything not for freedom but for enslavement.

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Ben Franklin

 

[OP20]

True Patriot.

 

[heatlesssun]

There is a shadow government. Believe it or live in ignorance. NSA is collecting everything not for freedom but for enslavement.

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Ben Franklin

There are various versions of this quote from Franklin but the one directly associated with him is much more nuanced:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

I think the key to what Franklin was saying here is "temporary".

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Safety is always temporary, and never assured.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

You know....at some point the "It's Bush's fault" isn't valid. As a matter of fact, that fucking point in time was years ago.

Obama might not have been able to say anything about it, but he sure as hell could have ended such programs. He didn't. I will say, if this is the most transparent administration in history, I apparently do not know what the word "transparent" means. Most corrupt I would agree with. Transparent....nah, not by a long shot.

Most corrupt? Seriously?

As opposed to starting wars in the middle east so your family and business partners can get all kinds of lucrative contacts to blow things up, get rich off resources, and then rebuild it?

Granted I'm not an Obama fan... he's been pretty ineffective and frankly a major sellout who turned to be a weak moderate at best as opposed to a progressive who might actually bring the United States into the 21st Century (or even into the 2nd half of the 20th Century and catch us up with the rest of the modern Western world for that matter)...

But in the end, none of the actually matters... the whole liberal/conservative, republican/democrat thing is all just political theater designed to distract people from the fact that the people really running the show are the corporate thugs who own all the politicians regardless of which party they have stamped on their membership cards.

Granted democrats tend to go for a less blatantly evil approach to things, but whether they admit outright they are going to screw you over or do it behind your back, they are all lowlifes and the government has long ago been taken over by interests that are anything BUT those of the American people.

 

[lilbabycat]

And maybe I'm stretching but the idea is that "little temporary" is synonymous to "short/narrow sighted". Those that don't grasp the whole weight of decisions are doomed to live with them.

 

[heatlesssun]

Safety is always temporary, and never assured.

There's also the matter of what exactly is "essential liberty". There is wide spread agreement by most Constitutional experts on both the right and left that the Constitution doesn't provide any protections for privacy, not in the modern sense. The Forth Amendment only provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires a court order based on reasonable cause. I think that's a long way away from total and guaranteed privacy.

And yes, safety is only temporary, as is and every human life. But the threat on a fusion bomb going off in a populated area or the release of a bioweapon are existential threats to everyone on this planet and the "successful" release of such weapons make this surveillance issue irrelevant. Perhaps these programs are overreach, but that is preferable to a fusion bomb.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

There's also the matter of what exactly is "essential liberty". There is wide spread agreement by most Constitutional experts on both the right and left that the Constitution doesn't provide any protections for privacy, not in the modern sense. The Forth Amendment only provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires a court order based on reasonable cause. I think that's a long way away from total and guaranteed privacy.

And yes, safety is only temporary, as is and every human life. But the threat on a fusion bomb going off in a populated area or the release of a bioweapon are existential threats to everyone on this planet and the "successful" release of such weapons make this surveillance issue irrelevant. Perhaps these programs are overreach, but that is preferable to a fusion bomb.

No thanks.

 

[Coldblackice]

You just made the list. Who's laughing now?

My son renamed our wifi to "NSA Monitoring Node 1".

I feggin' love this.

Curious -- could something like this incur legal troubles?

(..."legal"-legal troubles, like impersonating government. No doubt it falls within the jurisdiction of black op'ery )

 

[vallonen]

And this is the issue. Who complained about the Patriot Act? Most everyone against it was considered a liberal ACLU member that supported the terrorists.

Samt tactics were used against the German population who raised concerns about the enabling act in the 1930's. They had to be attacked because they were going against the agenda, thus they were labeled as terrorists, unpatriotic and all the rest of it.

Funny, because they were the direct opposite.

 

[MRAB54]

Bits and pieces of info about NSA tapping major ISP's have been floating around for a while. All this guy did was confirm it... Look at where Google is deploying its next fiber rollout, and then look at the number of military bases in and around Provo. Get your tin foil hats ready

 

[MCRAYGSX]

He was trying to defend our Freedom and bill of rights.

 

[Thuleman]

Get your tin foil hats ready

Not so fast!
Tin Foil Hats Actually Make it Easier for the Government to Track Your Thoughts

 

[Devilpup]

I actually hate douchebags like this. Just once I'd like to see a program leaked by a senior member with actual knowledge of what the program is about, rather than some peon with limited access.

Be like if I worked in a hospital and said it's up to no good because I saw blood on the floor once.

Another thing that pisses me off is people have no idea what the laws are regarding intelligence and even evidence collection. If you did, you probably wouldn't care as much about this guy or this program.

The government collects information about it's citizens, no shit sherlock now you're a big hero for revealing that closely guarded secret. The reason that stuff is classified because of HOW we got the info, not the info itself. For the most part, most of that data is "could give a shit" level on the radar of anyone important.

 

[heatlesssun]

He was trying to defend our Freedom and bill of rights.

This isn't a matter of freedom but of privacy. They aren't the same thing legally, even by Constitutional standards. The bar of privacy is much lower. The Fourth Amendment says all the government needs is probable cause and a warrant to look through your stuff. However you still have the same freedoms until convicted by due process. At least in the old days.

 

[kac77]

I actually hate douchebags like this. Just once I'd like to see a program leaked by a senior member with actual knowledge of what the program is about, rather than some peon with limited access.

Be like if I worked in a hospital and said it's up to no good because I saw blood on the floor once.

Um no. The guy isn't a janitor he's basically a system admin for the program itself. I'm sure he knows what the buttons do.

Another thing that pisses me off is people have no idea what the laws are regarding intelligence and even evidence collection. If you did, you probably wouldn't care as much about this guy or this program.

People do know the laws I think that's why it made the news no?

The government collects information about it's citizens, no shit sherlock now you're a big hero for revealing that closely guarded secret. The reason that stuff is classified because of HOW we got the info, not the info itself. For the most part, most of that data is "could give a shit" level on the radar of anyone important.

You say that now until you are the one under scrutiny. Just because you know someone does something does not mean the thing that the person is doing is ethical or legal.

 

[heatlesssun]

The government collects information about it's citizens, no shit sherlock now you're a big hero for revealing that closely guarded secret. The reason that stuff is classified because of HOW we got the info, not the info itself. For the most part, most of that data is "could give a shit" level on the radar of anyone important.

If you're old enough, 9/11 is a day that one tends to remember with a lot of clarity. At that point everybody had to know that the life was going to be a little different. I'm not condoning these programs but at the same time when your ass in on the line for protecting an entire nation it's going to be different from that perspective.

 

[heatlesssun]

Um no. The guy isn't a janitor he's basically a system admin for the program itself. I'm sure he knows what the buttons do.

But has he been privy to really what's going on? Does he have any idea about what may have been averted because of these programs? I want the same person that leaks this kind of stuff to sit in the big chairs and have to make the calls and to accept responsibility for the consequences and then tell us all about it.

 

[kac77]

But has he been privy to really what's going on?

Well let's say this .. obviously he knows more than I do.

Does he have any idea about what may have been averted because of these programs?

Seems like a strawman argument. He didn't do it to stop a terrorist attack. He did it to stop abuses of the 4th amendment. It's in that light where he should be judged.

I want the same person that leaks this kind of stuff to sit in the big chairs and have to make the calls and to accept responsibility for the consequences and then tell us all about it.

That's the one thing that never happens in the US. People in power never take responsibility for the crimes they commit.

 

[BryanSTG]

Am I the only one that assumed the government was doing this? When I heard the govt was monitoring everything it bothered me to have it confirmed, but in no way surprised me. I am actually surprised it took them this long!

I've assumed this for quite a long time as well; this confirmation isn't surprising in the slightest. I've discussed this a few times over the years and most people thought it was just a crazy conspiracy theory. These same people also don't believe and/or don't care that sneaky, shady, Google spies on every one and everything they do either.

 

[MRAB54]

Not so fast!
Tin Foil Hats Actually Make it Easier for the Government to Track Your Thoughts

From the article: "the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC"

That's rich So I guess I need a steel hat???

Back on topic. This was bound to happen - a project this massive requires a lot of bodies to put it into place. Even the peons who aren't told anything have to draw conclusions. Couple that with the relentless ramming of political ideals down everyone's throats...

 

[Parmenides]

So Senator Obama becomes President Obama and receives his first down and dirty security briefing and learns of about things like PRISM. As President of the United States, he couldn't have said anything publicly about this program because the first thing Republicans in Congress would have done is accuse him of treason. Hell, I imagine some Democrats would have done the same thing.

Even if it was politically impossible to bring on full transparency, he could have scaled these programs back. Instead he expanded them then used them to monitor more than suspected terrorists. Everyone is an extremist: media figures, military veterans, supporters of border security and advocates of gun rights. (Department of homeland security). Label people with opposing philosophies then monitor them.

It's not a matter of being an apologist, for me it's a matter of being responsible for the security of an entire nation and having far from all the facts. I have a feeling that a lot of people if they were to sit down and learn ALL of the dirty details about what is really going on and actually have responsibility for the consequences of these decisions, it wouldn't be that simple.

We are spending vast resources monitoring more than people who could bring in bombs and bioterror.

This isn't a matter of freedom but of privacy. They aren't the same thing legally, even by Constitutional standards. The bar of privacy is much lower. The Fourth Amendment says all the government needs is probable cause and a warrant to look through your stuff. However you still have the same freedoms until convicted by due process. At least in the old days.

probable cause of political dissent. Probable cause that someone might sway people to no longer believe in your ideology. Maybe there is a happy balance between security and freedom, but we are well past that.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well let's say this .. obviously he knows more than I do.

And obviously he knows WAY more than I do. All I am saying is does he have any idea actually how this data has been used?

Seems like a strawman argument. He didn't do it to stop a terrorist attack. He did it to stop abuses of the 4th amendment. It's in that light where he should be judged.

What has this program prevented or not prevented in terms of property damage and lose of life is one of the most basic and important questions that can be asked about it. Whether or not this program is in violation of the 4th Amendment is debatable. That said, I don't believe that any amendment to the Constitution was written to make it easier to kill US Citizens and destroy property in this country. And this point is the heart and soul of these debates. Freedom is not a limitless Constitutional guarantee and privacy is never mentioned directly. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights were clearly written with the intent of protecting the people from government and there is only one amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids an action by government and citizens in the US. But treason is defined in the Articles of Constitution, so clearly enemies of the State were understood as well by the Founders.

These are timeless issues that have existed long before we were all born and will exist long after we all die and blaming Bush or Obama or whomever is beyond idiotic.

That's the one thing that never happens in the US. People in power never take responsibility for the crimes they commit.

If I could sentence Snowdon I'd make him President of the United States for two terms.

 

[Gman1979]

If you guys bothered to actually read more about this, it's not just about what he leaked. When he was working for the CIA, he was working on a project that was spying on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, entirely illegal under federal law and the CIA's own charter. His position there later lead to him getting the contractor job that gave him access to the information he leaked.

He was also once in training to be a member of the Army Special Forces (specific unit and other info unknown atm) but was given a medical discharge after breaking both his legs during training. It was after this that he got the CIA gig.

 

[heatlesssun]

Even if it was politically impossible to bring on full transparency, he could have scaled these programs back. Instead he expanded them then used them to monitor more than suspected terrorists. Everyone is an extremist: media figures, military veterans, supporters of border security and advocates of gun rights. (Department of homeland security). Label people with opposing philosophies then monitor them.

Sure, Congress won't even let him close Gitmo.

We are spending vast resources monitoring more than people who could bring in bombs and bioterror.

No more than invading a country that we said had these weapons but didn't.

probable cause of political dissent. Probable cause that someone might sway people to no longer believe in your ideology. Maybe there is a happy balance between security and freedom, but we are well past that.

That depends or who you are and where and when you were born. Certainly for me there would have been little freedom in relative terms compared to what I have now had I been born where I was a generation ago. Monitoring phones calls that no one cares about beats the hell of signs that tell me where and where I would be permitted. Freedom, even in this country has been a journey for many, not a destination.

 

[BBA]

No more than invading a country that we said had these weapons but didn't.
.

You mean a country that actually used the weapons on its own citizens and then shipped them off to syria the weeks before we invaded (both are factual statements)

 

[Gman1979]

You mean a country that actually used the weapons on its own citizens and then shipped them off to syria the weeks before we invaded (both are factual statements)

Props to you for actually making an informed statement concerning that matter. Few people bother to look past the soundbites and point out actual facts as you did in this instance and it's refreshing.

 

[heatlesssun]

Props to you for actually making an informed statement concerning that matter. Few people bother to look past the soundbites and point out actual facts as you did in this instance and it's refreshing.

We didn't invade Iraq over just chemical weapons. It had been known for years before the US went into Iraq that Sadam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, his own people. Remember the whole deal about the uranium and the mushroom cloud?

We've known for years that Syria has chemical weapons and we know with near certainty that Assad has used them against his own citizens in its current civil war, that weakling organization that the right loves to despise, the UN, has even said so. And as much as this nation hates being spied on by its own government my guess it would hate even more getting directly involved in yet another Middle-Eastern war that will cost trillions.

 

[kac77]

You mean a country that actually used the weapons on its own citizens and then shipped them off to syria the weeks before we invaded (both are factual statements)

No we are talking about the country that gave them those weapons in the first place.

 

[MRAB54]

probable cause of political dissent. Probable cause that someone might sway people to no longer believe in your ideology. Maybe there is a happy balance between security and freedom, but we are well past that.

We are absolutely past that. The press barely covered the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/ndaa-home?p=ndaa

Any US citizen can be detained without due process. We look back on Iraq and say, well at Saddam is out of power, he used to lock up his opponents, never to be seen again - at least we rid the people of his tyranny. Yet, we are quickly going down the road of those we demonized.

 

[kac77]

And obviously he knows WAY more than I do. All I am saying is does he have any idea actually how this data has been used?

Do we? I'm not trying to be funny here. But it's just the type of question that brings with it a certain level of irony. You are asking how much he knows about something we had no idea about a couple of days ago. U]We[/U] don't have enough information to ask that type of question.

What has this program prevented or not prevented in terms of property damage and lose of life is one of the most basic and important questions that can be asked about it.

But that's just it you don't know. Neither do I for that matter. It's the type of question that's too cute by half.

I'll give you an example. Say tomorrow you go out to your car and you find that it's gone. Weeks pass, then months, and even years. Finally after 10 years or so you find out that I stole your car. You bang on my door and I open it and say, "Hey man how did you find out that I stole your car? I know you are mad, but I did it for a good reason. I did it for your safety. I took your car to save your life. Now that you know about my plan I don't know if I'll be able to stop your car from killing you in the future."

Come to find out your cousin told you. Now since your cousin told you about my plan did he inadvertently put your life in danger?

Whether or not this program is in violation of the 4th Amendment is debatable. That said, I don't believe that any amendment to the Constitution was written to make it easier to kill US Citizens and destroy property in this country. And this point is the heart and soul of these debates. Freedom is not a limitless Constitutional guarantee and privacy is never mentioned directly. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights were clearly written with the intent of protecting the people from government and there is only one amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids an action by government and citizens in the US. But treason is defined in the Articles of Constitution, so clearly enemies of the State were understood as well by the Founders.

These are timeless issues that have existed long before we were all born and will exist long after we all die and blaming Bush or Obama or whomever is beyond idiotic.

You're right, but that's why we have the judicial branch of government which adjudicates constitutionality of law. The problem is because this program was done in secret it's never been put forth to the supreme court. Your ability to seek redress in a court of law was prevented by the program's secrecy. Being able to seek redress in a court of law IS in the Constitution.

As a side note though the word "privacy" used to mean you had to go to the bathroom.

 

[dgz]

FWIW, I think that the whole Wikileaks stuff was total BS and releasing all those diplomatic cables shouldn't have been done, hope Assange rots in hell.

Having said that, what Edward Snowden did was to tell the American people just how exactly the government is spying on them every single second of every single day. In my book that makes Snowden a hero./QUOTE]

Wikileaks and everyone involved should rot in hell for exposing what your government do to others.

This guy is a hero for exposing what your government does to you.

Disgusting hypocrisy.

 

[Ididar]

Be an apologist for these fuckwits if you want, I refuse to.

Apologist? I think they're both assholes. I'm pointing out that the debate quickly becomes an Obama vs Bush argument instead of the reality that is all the people are bitching about Obama or Bush while ignoring that the very representative they have in congress that they voted for supported the legislation. So, they won't take responsibility themselves for voting for a guy that supported it ... so they blame the President(s). You really missed the point.