• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

US federal judge rules NSA phone program likely unconstitutional

Snowden, himself, told the world how many people had access to privileged data. He told the world over a million people had access to information like where our stations were and who are our assets.

He said it and did so proudly.

You are being very naive if you don't think the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Iraqis, Brits, Israelis haven't tried to find other people who s such access. It would be irresponsible for them not to try to do this.

Please show me his quotes. Also, if you are correct, I don't see how it benefits the Chinese to know that the government runs a massive surveillance operation with hundreds of thousands of employees (or over a million according to you). I'm guessing these rough numbers have been public knowledge for years. Finally, I don't think assets have been publicly identified as a result of Snowden.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty clear that Snowden's leaks make the U.S. less safe and worse off diplomatically. That's not really even debatable.

What's debatable is whether what he did was justified given the way the NSA may be breaking the law and in the overall context of privacy rights.
How do you think the revelations have made us less safe? I'm sure our enemies have suspected these capabilities for years. Bin Laden refused to use cell phones or email because he figured we could track him if he did. I agree that it's caused diplomatic problems, particularly with our allies. Then again, the heavy handed way the US government has handled this has also caused problems- for example, forcing the Bolivian president's plane to land because we thought Snowden was onboard, which I think was outrageous.
 
Last edited:
As to the first part- he could have taken taken a tiny amount of specific data to show how the NSA was spying illegally on US citizens and told Congress (in closed session) about other issues.

I think there is a very good chance this would not have worked, for reasons which I lay out in my response DeacCav06 below.

Along these lines, I think I have posted that I believe Snowden was used as a pawn/sucker by Julian Assange or his people. It takes a lot of planning and a bunch of people to arrange Snowden's exit from Hawai'i and Hong Kong.
I consider this highly unlikely. For one thing, just look at the nature of the leaks. The documents Manning took were eventually released en masse. Snowden gave specific instructions to the three reporters he gave the documents to that he did not want to harm any intelligence agents and they should be careful and selective in what they release. And it does not take a bunch of planning to get on a plane from Hawaii to Hong Kong- just a plane ticket. After the shit hit the fan in Hong Kong Wikileaks did begin helping him- specifically some of their attorneys who had legal expertise when it comes to these issues. I think that's understandable.
It's been reported that Assange was involved. I really think Snowden was in way over his head. Assange doesn't care what happens to Snowden as long as Assange gets what he wants.

This has many more layers than "idealistic 20 something steals documents to protect the privacy of American citizens".
It makes for an entertaining conspiracy theory, but the way this has unfolded makes it implausible IMO. See the quotes from Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman in my response to DeacCav06 below.
 
Last edited:
There is no question in my mind that snowden is a traitor.
Does this sound like something a traitor would do (from an interview with Barton Gellman, a reporter from the Washington Post):
"[Snowden] gave these documents, ultimately, to only three journalists. What he said he wanted was for us to use our own judgment and to make sure that his bias was kept out of it so that we could make our own judgment about what was newsworthy and important for the public to know. And he said we should also consider how to avoid harm.

"Now, in case anyone doubts his intentions, let's consider what he could've done. If Chelsea [aka Bradley] Manning was able to exfiltrate and send to WikiLeaks and publish in whole half a million U.S. government documents, Edward Snowden — who is far, far more capable [and] had far greater access, certainly knows how to transmit documents — he could've sent them to WikiLeaks. He could've set up and mirrored around the Internet in a way that could not have been taken down. All of the documents could be public right now and they're not. ... He told us not to do it."
Another thing you regularly hear from the conspiracy theorists is that Snowden was in cahoots with the Russians.
Writing an editorial about the risk that Snowden... or that implies that Snowden is about to or may already have handed over all of his information to Wikileaks or to the Russians is entirely without evidence. It is pure speculation. There is strong evidence, now three months after his first disclosures, and more than three months after he started giving information to journalists, that he does not intend to make the whole pile public. He could have done it on the first day. He could have done it months before I ever heard of him.
As far as the speculation that the Chinese or Russian governments have obtained access to this information -- that they have the whole pile, so that this alleged judiciousness by the journalists is pointless -- that is not only speculative, I think I have very strong evidence that it is not the case. I know how Snowden operates. I've disclosed some of it. I have not disclosed all of it -- just because he has unmasked himself doesn't mean that there are no confidences left in the relationship.

He is exceptionally skilled at digital self-defense. In fact, one of his jobs, while he was at the NSA, and while he was employed by the CIA, was to teach courses to US national security officials about how to operate in a high-threat digital environment even on untrusted hardware -- essentially how you do secret business overseas without being surveilled by the other side.

I believe that he has rendered himself incapable of opening the archive while in Russia. That is to say, it's not only that he doesn't have the key anymore. It's that there's nothing for the key to open any more. It's that he has rendered the encrypted information literally impossible to open with what he has in his possession. He has told a former Senator in a letter that even under torture he couldn't give the information to the Russians. And that's not a boast about his alleged ability to withstand torture. That is a statement of fact about his capabilities. He simply can't open it. And that means that the Russians can't get it.


He could have raised awareness without compromising US secrets.
I’ve interviewed many NSA whistleblowers, and the common denominator is that they felt ignored when attempting to bring illegal or unethical operations to the attention of higher-ranking officials. For example, William Binney and several other senior NSA staffers protested the agency’s domestic collection programs up the chain of command, and even attempted to bring the operations to the attention of the attorney general, but they were ignored. Only then did Binney speak publicly to me for an article in Wired magazine.

In a Q&A on the Guardian Web site, Snowden cited Binney as an example of “how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they’ll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it.”

And even when whistleblowers bring their concerns to the news media, the NSA usually denies that the activity is taking place. The agency denied Binney’s charges that it was obtaining all consumer metadata from Verizon and had access to virtually all Internet traffic. It was only when Snowden leaked the documents revealing the phone-log program and showing how PRISM works that the agency was forced to come clean.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-national-security-agency/2013/06/21/438e0c4a-d37f-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_print.html
Also, look at how NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was treated:
I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You're identified as someone they don't like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

I reached a point in early 2006 when I decided I would contact a reporter. I had the same level of security clearance as Snowden. If you look at the indictment from 2010, you can see that I was accused of causing "exceptionally grave damage to US national security". Despite allegations that I had tippy-top-secret documents, In fact, I had no classified information in my possession, and I disclosed none to the Baltimore Sun journalist during 2006 and 2007. But I got hammered: in November 2007, I was raided by a dozen armed FBI agents, when I was served with a search warrant. The nightmare had only just begun, including extensive physical and electronic surveillance.

In April 2008, in a secret meeting with the FBI, the chief prosecutor from the Department of Justice assigned to lead the prosecution said, "How would you like to spend the rest of your life in jail, Mr Drake?" – unless I co-operated with their multi-year, multimillion-dollar criminal leak investigation, launched in 2005 after the explosive New York Times article revealing for the first time the warrantless wiretapping operation. Two years later, they finally charged me with a ten felony count indictment, including five counts under the Espionage Act. I faced upwards of 35 years in prison.

In July 2011, after the government's case had collapsed under the weight of truth, I plead to a minor misdemeanor for "exceeding authorized use of a computer" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – in exchange for the DOJ dropping all ten felony counts. I received as a sentence one year's probation and 240 hours of community service: I interviewed almost 50 veterans for the Library of Congress veterans history project. This was a rare, almost unprecedented, case of a government prosecution of a whistleblower ending in total defeat and failure.

So, the stakes for whistleblowers are incredibly high. The government has got its knives out: there's a massive manhunt for Snowden. They will use all their resources to hunt him down and every detail of his life will be turned inside out. They'll do everything they can to "bring him to justice" – already there are calls for the "traitor" to be "put away for life".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution?INTCMP=SRCH
 
Last edited:
Would you consider him a criminal instead of a traitor?
 
That's the crux of the issue though. I'm not sure how you can say "all that's really changed." 1) Google has a right to the data because you gave it to them. 2) Google can't lock you up, keep you from flying or leaving the country, withhold your pay, take your kids, etc, etc.

The ability for Google to use the data you've given them to offer you an advertisement for penis cream is in no way similar to the ability of the government to track your movements, your communications and your purchases, among other things, to establish probable cause against you rather than the other way around. The 4th Amendment is meant to protect US from the GOVERNMENT. There's nothing more critical than the fact that it's the government that has decided to access this privately held data by illegal means behind closed door court rulings and unchecked interpretations of law. It's the very center of the issue. I don't know you it can be brushed off as if it's not much different than penis cream advertisements.

So this is semantics, but it's kind of what makes it interesting. Google's "ability" and the government's "ability" are extremely similar. What they do with the data may or may not be very different. Google/Apple know your movements, communications, purchases, etc - just like the government collection of data does.

And when you sign an agreement with Google, they promise they will not do certain things with your data. The government also promises not to do certain things with your data. In one case you use gmail, in another you use the government's protection.

So the collection is in question here - it's not the use. I mean, if the government begins scanning every piece of network traffic for downloaded music, then starts arresting 500 people a day that would be unconstitutional. But just collecting it, having it as a source for legally approved searches/investigations... I dunno. I think most of it at this point is just collecting for the sake of collecting - trusting that eventually the data mining technology will exist to make it useful.

But make no mistake - this is absolutely how we catch criminals. When I worked for CBP - data was hugely important. You get someone at the border with drugs on them - then you hit the databases. Find them in a hotel at the same time as another convicted drug dealer 3 times? Find them borrowing a credit card? It was almost entirely financial but it's how they prove people do bad stuff - most of the time with probable cause already established.

Of course I'm against it being unpoliced or unchecked - but nobody really knows if that's the case yet. We just have these gotcha statements and figures like "OMG the Government recorded 700 Billion phone calls yesterday of citizens!" This isn't like a phone tap. Honestly I haven't really formed an opinion solidly one way or the other until more info comes out. The gotchas aren't surprising at all though.
 
Would you consider him a criminal instead of a traitor?

Is it a crime to expose a crime? Would you consider Daniel Ellsberg a criminal for releasing the Pentagon Papers? I have little doubt that most reasonable people who look closely at these programs will find them unconstitutional. Snowden gave up everything, a hot girlfriend, a well paying job, life in paradise (Hawaii) to remain true to his conscience. I think that's incredibly admirable. What he did is to be admired, not demonized.
 
But just collecting it, having it as a source for legally approved searches/investigations... I dunno. I think most of it at this point is just collecting for the sake of collecting - trusting that eventually the data mining technology will exist to make it useful.

Imagine the chilling effect these programs have on free expression. When people know the government is collecting all this data on them, and can go back in time and use it against them, they're more likely to watch what they say. It has a corrosive effect on free speech and ultimately, our democracy, or what's left of it. People will be less likely to try and stand apart from the crowd- as people like activists are typically targeted. Here's a link to a map the ACLU has put together which involves authorities spying on first amendment activity.
https://www.aclu.org/maps/spying-first-amendment-activity-state-state
And one more thing. A key defense of NSA supporters has been people can't abuse the system because of all the tight controls they've put in place. But just a few days ago the NY Times had an article that said the following:
American intelligence and law enforcement investigators have concluded that they may never know the entirety of what the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden extracted from classified government computers before leaving the United States, according to senior government officials.
Tight controls? Trust us? Really?
What we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg. There are many more cases working their way through the courts. I agree it will be interesting to see what happens. I hope sanity prevails.
 
Last edited:
He could have raised awareness without compromising US secrets.

Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the courts have failed miserably at providing constitutional oversight. When the New York Times finally found the courage to expose the earlier NSA spying program in 2005, Congress responded by legitimizing and extending this illegal program through the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The courts proved little more vigorous in their willingness to serve as a meaningful check on such surveillance programs. Two different lawsuits brought by the ACLU – one in Detroit and one in New York that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – were dismissed because it was impossible to prove that our clients were in fact targeted by these secret government surveillance programs. Absent such proof, which the government was never going to provide, no American would be in a position to challenge the government surveillance programs. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Solicitor General Don Verilli in our Clapper litigation: "General, is there anybody who has standing?" In disclosing these documents Snowden took the patriotic route, knowing that nothing short of public release would get the attention of the American people, our government and our allies. He didn’t turn to the normal, government channels to raise his concerns of illegal government activity because he knew that others had used those channels and failed. Fortunately, both the courts and Congress seem to have renewed vigor in looking into the constitutionality of NSA surveillance – but such vigor is a direct result of Snowden’s revelations.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/edward-snowden-patriot
 
you understand the definition of 'traitor', right?

Try swearing to uphold the Constitution - Amendment IV, "The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particulalry describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. " - There is no doubt that NSA has consistently violated this part of the Constitution under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Yes, I think that swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States and then violationg it massively and consistently is a betrayal of the country and consequently a form of treason.
 
Last edited:
No, here is where the language is important. Treason is a word that has a meaning. It's not just 'breaking the law' or 'breaking important laws'. Treason specifically refers to giving aid to your enemies or acting to overthrow or undermine one's own government/leadership.
 
Well, by that definition, George Washington and Company were traitors.
 
So nothing. They committed treason against their government. As you said, they undermined one's own government/leadership.
 
So this is semantics, but it's kind of what makes it interesting. Google's "ability" and the government's "ability" are extremely similar. What they do with the data may or may not be very different. Google/Apple know your movements, communications, purchases, etc - just like the government collection of data does.

And when you sign an agreement with Google, they promise they will not do certain things with your data. The government also promises not to do certain things with your data. In one case you use gmail, in another you use the government's protection.

So the collection is in question here - it's not the use. I mean, if the government begins scanning every piece of network traffic for downloaded music, then starts arresting 500 people a day that would be unconstitutional. But just collecting it, having it as a source for legally approved searches/investigations... I dunno. I think most of it at this point is just collecting for the sake of collecting - trusting that eventually the data mining technology will exist to make it useful.

I have to back up BSF on this. The collection is important because it enables use. Google (or a rogue Google employee) could use your personal information to embarrass you, blackmail you, maybe steal from you. If they did, you would have all kinds of rights to sue the shit out of Google and recover a billion dollars. Your rights against Google's treachery would be protected by the courts and the government.

The government's ability to use personal information against a citizen goes far beyond anything Google could ever begin to do. And even more critically, if the government does misuse the information, you are quite likely powerless to stop them. The government can wreck your life, put you in jail, send agents to raid your house, get your fired from your job - the list goes on.

The 4th amendment prohibition against general warrants was enacted specifically to prevent the authorities from going on fishing expeditions to collect information - data - that they could use against people previously unsuspected of any crime. The 4th amendment was intended to prevent the data collection from ever happening in the first place. In my opinion, there is no way to interpret the 4th amendment to allow the government to hoover up vast amounts of evidence and hold on to it "just in case".

There is a reason that the Germans have very strong digital privacy laws. They - at least the Eastern Germans - know exactly what it is like to live in a country run by secret police who are constantly putting together a dossier on every citizen just in case they need it one day.
 
The collection is important because it enables use...

The 4th amendment was intended to prevent the data collection from ever happening in the first place. In my opinion, there is no way to interpret the 4th amendment to allow the government to hoover up vast amounts of evidence and hold on to it "just in case".

:werd:
 
Here's an interesting question for DC, Kitchin or other lawyers. Theoretically users of Google, Yahoo, etc., (and possibly the phone companies) have given their permission to sell browsing data and other information about you. If this is so, why would the government be different than any other entity who buys this data?

If the TOS/contract with the providers allows them to share or sell your information, why isn't the government just another customer as each customer has alredy given their approval to do so?

I'm not saying I think this is a good thing. I'm just asking if this isn't an out for the intrusion.

Earlier I said the TOS should include the proviso that consumers should have to OK every sale or transfer of your personal information. I still maintain this position.
 
Here's an interesting question for DC, Kitchin or other lawyers. Theoretically users of Google, Yahoo, etc., (and possibly the phone companies) have given their permission to sell browsing data and other information about you. If this is so, why would the government be different than any other entity who buys this data?

Because the government is bound by the Constitution? I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but at first thought, it doesn't seem that it would matter HOW the data was obtained. It's simply not legal for the government to obtain it without probable cause.
 
Back
Top