12-13-2015 01:42 PM
196 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Does it matter if Congress had these intelligence briefings if the Director of National Intelligence just outright lies about what the NSA is doing?
    Nothing ever prevents Congress from asking for more information, or opening a formal investigation. I'm sure there are members of Congress that take information from intelligence as dubious at best.

    Now, to be fair, Clapper needs to be held accountable for lying, if he hasn't already. None of that makes what Snowden did ok, though. They are completely separate issues.


    I would venture a guess that a lot of what goes on is quid pro quo. "Hey, I won't say anything about this if you turn a blind eye to this". That definitely goes both ways. To think otherwise I think is naive.
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 10:51 AM
  2. rexxman's Avatar
    Traitor.
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 11:38 AM
  3. JHBThree's Avatar
    Does it matter if Congress had these intelligence briefings if the Director of National Intelligence just outright lies about what the NSA is doing?
    Then subpoena him.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    07-11-2013 12:44 PM
  4. retsaw's Avatar
    Nothing ever prevents Congress from asking for more information, or opening a formal investigation. I'm sure there are members of Congress that take information from intelligence as dubious at best.
    Perhaps, but will more questions or a formal investigation reveal the truth? And how will members of Congress know if it does or not?

    Now, to be fair, Clapper needs to be held accountable for lying, if he hasn't already. None of that makes what Snowden did ok, though. They are completely separate issues.
    On the contrary, I think it makes what Snowden did necessary.

    I would venture a guess that a lot of what goes on is quid pro quo. "Hey, I won't say anything about this if you turn a blind eye to this". That definitely goes both ways. To think otherwise I think is naive.
    It wouldn't surprise me, but that sort of thing should still be exposed.


    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    07-11-2013 01:15 PM
  5. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Perhaps, but will more questions or a formal investigation reveal the truth? And how will members of Congress know if it does or not?

    On the contrary, I think it makes what Snowden did necessary.

    It wouldn't surprise me, but that sort of thing should still be exposed.


    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    The problem with that argument is that you can ALWAYS say "well, that's probably not everything" or "they probably just lied again". At some point you have to accept what is said, or accept that it's just the tip of the iceberg, because guess what? It's not going to stop or change. It will just be done under a greater veil of secrecy.

    What Snowden did was illegal. No matter what personal feelings are on the matter. He violated US law, and exposed secrets in a very damaging way to US intelligence efforts.

    Has anybody watched the show 24? Here me out....the last season takes place in New York City. The premise is that the terrorist have a mole inside CTU. This mole gives them information on how to circumvent every part of the nuclear material detection grid. Basically giving them free access to bring a dirty bomb into the city. "Hey, here's exactly how we stop you. Now make sure you do none of those things."

    This is kind of the same, but with cyber stuff. "Hey, here's how they track your communication. Make sure you do it in a different way now."



    I will also add this....the ultimate threat against anybody releasing secret information is the threat of legal action, or maybe death. Some people don't care about that, and will leak stuff anyway. The people keeping the secrets, likewise, will sometimes not care enough and think the secret is important enough that they'll lie no matter what the consequence just to keep the secret. There will always be people on both sides. I would rather, personally, give up some privacy for the added security versus not having enough security and having more big attacks (or even smaller attacks) happen. Of course there's a line, but I'm not sure where I personally define it, or even if I'd be able to explain it if I did know.
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 02:01 PM
  6. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Please do not conflate not supporting Snowden with supporting the NSA. They are two different issues.

    Also, you're supporting what kevin is saying. Sbowden isn't a whistleblower, he's an opportunist that took this job specifically to steal this information.
    Yes. Because (on this point). we are in agreement. He did take the job on purpose. But he didn't take it on some random chance. He already knew these things to be an issue.

    That's actually not true. That 'select group' was the entire congress. They knew what it was. They voted for it. If any of them didn't know, its because they chose to skip out on the multiple briefings per year that were offered to them so they could be told what was occurring. As a matter of fact, after all of this broke the NSA offered a session to the entire senate to discuss this. Less than half of them showed up to it.
    And now you are supporting my point. It doesn't matter WHY everyone in congress doesn't know about this program, only that not everyone in congress knew. My point still stands. Just because you elect someone to office to "represent" you. Doesn't mean that they are and doesn't mean they are not asleep at the wheel while Rome is burning.

    Puh-leaze. This type of rhetoric doesn't do anything helpful. All it does is whip up the FUD. We are still a free country. But when you violate the law and flee, you don't exactly have the luxury of some of those freedoms any more. Snowden is a fugitive.
    Interesting that you mention freedom considering what has transpired. So you think it is okay to go after official planes of foreign leaders of other countries? Interesting. Guess the only leaders with true sovereignty are the ones with nuclear weapons. Guess that explains why N.Korea wants one so bad. Membership does have it's privileges! We throw are weight around too much sometimes. Like a bully. Just because we are that bully, shouldn't make it any more acceptable to you.
    07-11-2013 02:28 PM
  7. GadgetGator's Avatar
    How do you determine who may or may not be a terrorist (or doing terrorist type things) without information? How else would we gather that information? Would you like us to guess?
    How did we do it in the old days??

    I also like how you completely dismiss the fact that letting the enemy know some of our intelligence gathering tactics doesn't put operatives in danger.
    Because it doesn't. The only thing that is known by anyone, is that we are spying on them. Oooh....big surprise. Most of the competent ones knew that already. It's why Bin Laden didn't even go outside without a hat because he knew that satellites could see from space.

    You're splitting hairs when talking about who's elected. The idea is that the person with the most votes wins, and should therefore be representative of the majorities viewpoint. If that ceases to be the case then someone else should be elected. If you want to get into the specifics of gerrymandering then start a new thread please (I don't disagree, but that's the system we currently live in).
    I am not spitting hairs at all. You specifically said that you send people to represent you and your views (otherwise why vote for them). My point is that yes, you vote for someone, but that person might not be the one you voted for nor have your interest at heart. And even if they do, they might not be competent once they get there and instead are asleep at the wheel.

    We're nowhere near a police state.
    I believe the question was, at what point do we become one? We are no where near the free country we once were. Our technology has come with a price. Cameras everywhere, tracking software, evesdropping, raw collection of data....you can't possibly claim that things are the same as they were when you were born. Something has been lost. Do you really not see that? And that's how it happens...bit by bit...little by little..until you wonder, hey...how did we get here? But by then it is too late. Again, we are at a cross roads with our policies and our technologies. Which way we go with them will determine our future. Already things are being ignored or gone around. If you aren't worried about that, fine. But be glad that there are people out there who are.

    What does denial of airspace by another country, or his plane getting searched have to do with us being free at all?
    Wow? Really? So if our President's plane was forced down and searched you'd be cool with it? Um, okay. Apparently you have a vastly different concept of freedom than I do. That's more along the lines of that whole police state thing I mentioned earlier.

    It's almost like you're saying that because we're free we don't have to abide by the laws of other countries, it respect their airspace. Is that the case?
    Interesting question. Do we respect their airspace when we are telling them how to use it? And when we think we can throw our weight around when we want? I refer you to my above example. If a country forced our own President's plane down, that would be okay with you? When supposedly free countries all of a sudden start restricting their airspace to foreign leaders of other countries, and making them deviate from their planned route, that should worry you a little. That indicates a worrisome change has occurred out there. One that is closer to a police state then a free society.
    07-11-2013 02:55 PM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Yes. Because (on this point). we are in agreement. He did take the job on purpose. But he didn't take it on some random chance. He already knew these things to be an issue.



    And now you are supporting my point. It doesn't matter WHY everyone in congress doesn't know about this program, only that not everyone in congress knew. My point still stands. Just because you elect someone to office to "represent" you. Doesn't mean that they are and doesn't mean they are not asleep at the wheel while Rome is burning.



    Interesting that you mention freedom considering what has transpired. So you think it is okay to go after official planes of foreign leaders of other countries? Interesting. Guess the only leaders with true sovereignty are the ones with nuclear weapons. Guess that explains why N.Korea wants one so bad. Membership does have it's privileges! We throw are weight around too much sometimes. Like a bully. Just because we are that bully, shouldn't make it any more acceptable to you.
    It absolutely matters why they don't know, if they're the ones that "missed the meeting". I can't really figure out who you're trying to say is at fault here. If you're going to say "the government" then that's a cop out argument, honestly.



    I don't understand why this is even an argument. The title of the thread is "Edward Snowden-Hero, Traitor or something else?" Which means that you have to answer in the context of current law, which is pretty clear IMO. Formal charges have been filed. If he ever sees trial and is convicted, the question has already been answered. It's fairly clear, though, exactly what his intentions were. General consensus by almost everyone is that if he saw trial he would be convicted.

    If you want to have the view that what he did will somehow change something then go right ahead. For me, all he did was verify what I, along with many others I suspect, already personally believed to be going on.
    07-11-2013 02:56 PM
  9. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    How did we do it in the old days??



    Because it doesn't. The only thing that is known by anyone, is that we are spying on them. Oooh....big surprise. Most of the competent ones knew that already. It's why Bin Laden didn't even go outside without a hat because he knew that satellites could see from space.



    I am not spitting hairs at all. You specifically said that you send people to represent you and your views (otherwise why vote for them). My point is that yes, you vote for someone, but that person might not be the one you voted for nor have your interest at heart. And even if they do, they might not be competent once they get there and instead are asleep at the wheel.



    I believe the question was, at what point do we become one? We are no where near the free country we once were. Our technology has come with a price. Cameras everywhere, tracking software, evesdropping, raw collection of data....you can't possibly claim that things are the same as they were when you were born. Something has been lost. Do you really not see that? And that's how it happens...bit by bit...little by little..until you wonder, hey...how did we get here? But by then it is too late. Again, we are at a cross roads with our policies and our technologies. Which way we go with them will determine our future. Already things are being ignored or gone around. If you aren't worried about that, fine. But be glad that there are people out there who are.



    Wow? Really? So if our President's plane was forced down and searched you'd be cool with it? Um, okay. Apparently you have a vastly different concept of freedom than I do. That's more along the lines of that whole police state thing I mentioned earlier.

    Interesting question. Do we respect their airspace when we are telling them how to use it? And when we think we can throw our weight around when we want? I refer you to my above example. If a country forced our own President's plane down, that would be okay with you? When supposedly free countries all of a sudden start restricting their airspace to foreign leaders of other countries, and making them deviate from their planned route, that should worry you a little. That indicates a worrisome change has occurred out there. One that is closer to a police state then a free society.
    Again, you proved nothing with regards to airspace. Let's say Turkey denied us use of their airspace (it wouldn't be the first time). What does that really say about us other than they don't agree with what we're doing? If you agree with the Turkish government, then move there. Nobody ever said that other countries are always going to agree with what we're doing. Would I want to know why they're going to search the plane? Yes. Of course I would. Why wouldn't I care? The bigger question is, why would our President go to a country that is that hostile towards what we're doing? Maybe we should make sure we're using the term Police State correctly: (from wikipedia) (I will circle back around in a bit. I gotta get some work done now LOL)

    A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
    The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[2]
    As the maintenance of a standing police force became common in the late 19th and early 20th century, the term "police state" came to be used[who?] more commonly to refer only to when a police force was used "too"[who?]strenuously, in a "rigid and repressive"[who?] way, as under fascism, crony capitalism, and in retroactive application to oppressive/repressive historic incidents like the French Revolution and the Roman Empire.[3][4]
    07-11-2013 03:12 PM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    How did we do it in the old days??
    This part does deserve its own response. Does it matter how we did it in the old days? No. Here's why. If our enemies have more advanced ways of communicating than we do intercepting those communications then we lose. It's a simple truth. That's like saying "why do we need rifles when muskets worked just fine in the old days?" You have to stay AHEAD of the enemy, not on par, and not behind. There are many facets to intelligence gathering, one of which is cyber, and that can't be replaced with anything else. What can be done, though, is replacing some of the "boots on the ground" intelligence with some cyber stuff, satellites, and drones. It's a multi-faceted approach and thinking that we only need to do things one way, or can just exclude one of those techniques and still be as effective, is kind of missing the idea.
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 03:37 PM
  11. gollum18's Avatar
    This part does deserve its own response. Does it matter how we did it in the old days? No. Here's why. If our enemies have more advanced ways of communicating than we do intercepting those communications then we lose. It's a simple truth. That's like saying "why do we need rifles when muskets worked just fine in the old days?" You have to stay AHEAD of the enemy, not on par, and not behind. There are many facets to intelligence gathering, one of which is cyber, and that can't be replaced with anything else. What can be done, though, is replacing some of the "boots on the ground" intelligence with some cyber stuff, satellites, and drones. It's a multi-faceted approach and thinking that we only need to do things one way, or can just exclude one of those techniques and still be as effective, is kind of missing the idea.
    The better question is... Why should you consider your fellow human beings enemies simply because they have different religious/cultural beliefs than you? Please answer that truthfully, without calling me a socialist (vulgararity), like others do.

    Sprint GS3 Running TN's Msg and Chubbs
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 03:40 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The better question is... Why should you consider your fellow human beings enemies simply because they have different religious/cultural beliefs than you? Please answer that truthfully, without calling me a socialist (vulgararity), like others do.

    Sprint GS3 Running TN's Msg and Chubbs
    It's far more than that, and you know it. I don't use my beliefs as a justification to go and try and kill them. I'm of the mind that I want to leave others alone and let them believe what they want in peace. My problem comes in when they are trying to come into "my yard" and cause harm to people simply because they have different beliefs, or that they just disagree with our way of life. But that question had very little do with Snowden.

    To directly answer your question, I only consider those that are attempting to commit acts of terror (that definition is not up for debate, either, since it's been clearly defined) against me or my country enemies. I would hope that holds true for anyone, anywhere, regardless of what country you call home.
    rexxman and msndrstood like this.
    07-11-2013 03:49 PM
  13. retsaw's Avatar
    The problem with that argument is that you can ALWAYS say "well, that's probably not everything" or "they probably just lied again". At some point you have to accept what is said, or accept that it's just the tip of the iceberg, because guess what? It's not going to stop or change. It will just be done under a greater veil of secrecy.
    Which is why we need people like Snowden to expose the truth.

    What Snowden did was illegal. No matter what personal feelings are on the matter. He violated US law, and exposed secrets in a very damaging way to US intelligence efforts.
    Yes, it is illegal for a reason, but sometimes you have to break the law for the greater good.

    Has anybody watched the show 24? Here me out....the last season takes place in New York City. The premise is that the terrorist have a mole inside CTU. This mole gives them information on how to circumvent every part of the nuclear material detection grid. Basically giving them free access to bring a dirty bomb into the city. "Hey, here's exactly how we stop you. Now make sure you do none of those things."

    This is kind of the same, but with cyber stuff. "Hey, here's how they track your communication. Make sure you do it in a different way now."
    I've watched 24, I do like a good story, but it is only a story, I don't base my life or sense of right and wrong on works of fiction, history and science are much better guides here.

    I will also add this....the ultimate threat against anybody releasing secret information is the threat of legal action, or maybe death. Some people don't care about that, and will leak stuff anyway. The people keeping the secrets, likewise, will sometimes not care enough and think the secret is important enough that they'll lie no matter what the consequence just to keep the secret. There will always be people on both sides. I would rather, personally, give up some privacy for the added security versus not having enough security and having more big attacks (or even smaller attacks) happen. Of course there's a line, but I'm not sure where I personally define it, or even if I'd be able to explain it if I did know.
    What big attacks? 9/11 was the only big attack and that will never happen again because they have fixed the aeroplane security problem, by reinforcing the cockpits and not opening the cockpit doors during flight, not the farce that is called the TSA. While tragic, even death toll from that attack pales in comparison to yearly automotive deaths, or even from the flu. You need to get some perspective on what the real danger is here, I'm far more likely to be killed in a car accident than be injured in a terrorist attack. I would even go so far as to say being spied on is more dangerous to my safety than terrorists are (I can't back that one with figures, but it is my perception of potential future dangers.)

    And if this surveillance is so useful, then why didn't they stop the Boston bombers?

    I think this quote is relevant here.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Should you not have the liberty of being free from being spied on without due cause? If this intrusion into our private lives remain unchecked it won't be long before the NSA has a dossier on every person in the US, just in case, and history has taught us that this will be abused by those in power. And you seem to want those in power to carry on doing whatever they think is right without oversight, and we also know from history that many atrocities have been committed under the in the name of doing what is right, so we can't just trust they are just doing what is right, they have to show us what they are doing so we can protest when we think they are wrong.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-11-2013 03:53 PM
  14. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Which is why we need people like Snowden to expose the truth.
    So we need members of government agencies who don't care to keep secrets of the state safe? That's ultimately committing treason. It'd be a whole different argument in this room if he was leaking information to terrorist affiliates. Everyone would be shouting for his head, then.


    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 03:58 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The better question is... Why should you consider your fellow human beings enemies simply because they have different religious/cultural beliefs than you? Please answer that truthfully, without calling me a socialist (vulgararity), like others do.

    Sprint GS3 Running TN's Msg and Chubbs
    Depending on the direction you take that question, it's probably not something that this thread needs to take on. It's veering far off of the OP already as is.
    07-11-2013 04:00 PM
  16. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Which is why we need people like Snowden to expose the truth.

    Yes, it is illegal for a reason, but sometimes you have to break the law for the greater good.

    I've watched 24, I do like a good story, but it is only a story, I don't base my life or sense of right and wrong on works of fiction, history and science are much better guides here.

    What big attacks? 9/11 was the only big attack and that will never happen again because they have fixed the aeroplane security problem, by reinforcing the cockpits and not opening the cockpit doors during flight, not the farce that is called the TSA. While tragic, even death toll from that attack pales in comparison to yearly automotive deaths, or even from the flu. You need to get some perspective on what the real danger is here, I'm far more likely to be killed in a car accident than be injured in a terrorist attack. I would even go so far as to say being spied on is more dangerous to my safety than terrorists are (I can't back that one with figures, but it is my perception of potential future dangers.)

    And if this surveillance is so useful, then why didn't they stop the Boston bombers?

    I think this quote is relevant here.Should you not have the liberty of being free from being spied on without due cause? If this intrusion into our private lives remain unchecked it won't be long before the NSA has a dossier on every person in the US, just in case, and history has taught us that this will be abused by those in power. And you seem to want those in power to carry on doing whatever they think is right without oversight, and we also know from history that many atrocities have been committed under the in the name of doing what is right, so we can't just trust they are just doing what is right, they have to show us what they are doing so we can protest when we think they are wrong.
    Where to begin.....historically speaking those countries with inferior intelligence do worse in times of "war" or conflict. We didn't do so well in Vietnam because we didn't have the intelligence we needed about how the enemy operated.

    Who said anything about big attacks? Also, who brought up the TSA as a solution to anything? For that matter, who said that any effort to stop attacks was 100% effective? If I were to base my arguments on my perceived "future dangers" then I would have plenty. But that's not how I choose to present my points. I'm also failing to see how comparisons to car accident deaths has any relevance to the discussion at hand. Unless you're suggesting that we should just let terrorists and other enemies do whatever they want and stop our intelligence gathering efforts.

    In reference to the bold above, they probably already have plenty of information on all of us. Illegal or not, I believe they would do the same thing. I never said anything or anyone didn't need oversight. I said the way Snowden went about it wasn't the correct way, and that I don't agree with his methods. It caused too much damage to too many things. Should we know? Yes and no. It's a fine balancing act, one that I've already said I'm not capable of properly explaining in a way that will come across the way I mean it (does that make sense LOL).
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 04:08 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    So we need members of government agencies who don't care to keep secrets of the state safe? That's ultimately committing treason. It'd be a whole different argument in this room if he was leaking information to terrorist affiliates. Everyone would be shouting for his head, then.


    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    I would say that we need to be a lot more deliberate in the way that we determine which things are classified and at what level. The majority of classified documents, programs, etc. are entirely benign and would pose no risk and with most, no embarrassment, should they be publicly available on the internet for the world to see. It may help with public perception if we construct a program in government that is tasked with constantly reviewing classified materials with the goal of declassifying as much as possible without posing any risk to current and future troops, critical systems, etc.

    The problem with the blanket statement of, "classified", is that the a huge amount of classified information could be turned over directly to a terrorist organization and it would be utterly useless to them. Would it still be treason to do so? Is the treasonous act the providing of information, of any kind, to those who would seek to use it against us? Or just information that proves valuable to them by providing inroads to circumvent our security?

    Another point... it is entirely possible that the program that Snowden leaked is obsolete or a "tip of the iceberg" sort of program, that provides nothing to enemies, etc. and the disclosure of which solely serves the purpose of making people looking for "the truth" or "conspiracies" feel like they uncovered the grand plan. Given that we all already knew, or assumed, that intelligence agencies were sifting through every detail of our lives... why are we surprised to find it confirmed? There are no details released in what we have received as to the exact mechanisms of "how" it is obtained, where it is stored and other specifics that would be needed to fight back against such surveillance... it's more of a wayside confirmation of the existence of a program that we all embraced, by varying extents, prior to the leaks.

    If Snowden's goal was to help evil people hurt other people, thus far he's a failure at it.
    If Snowden's goal was to put a stop to this kind of surveillance, he failed, the government has doubled down and the public, for the most part, doesn't care.
    If Snowden's goal was to alert the public to make them more vigilant, he failed.
    If Snowden's goal was to give misinformation, useless whether true or not, to people at the cost of his own life... he's succeeding... the question is why?
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 04:13 PM
  18. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I would say that we need to be a lot more deliberate in the way that we determine which things are classified and at what level. The majority of classified documents, programs, etc. are entirely benign and would pose no risk and with most, no embarrassment, should they be publicly available on the internet for the world to see. It may help with public perception if we construct a program in government that is tasked with constantly reviewing classified materials with the goal of declassifying as much as possible without posing any risk to current and future troops, critical systems, etc.

    The problem with the blanket statement of, "classified", is that the a huge amount of classified information could be turned over directly to a terrorist organization and it would be utterly useless to them. Would it still be treason to do so? Is the treasonous act the providing of information, of any kind, to those who would seek to use it against us? Or just information that proves valuable to them by providing inroads to circumvent our security?

    Another point... it is entirely possible that the program that Snowden leaked is obsolete or a "tip of the iceberg" sort of program, that provides nothing to enemies, etc. and the disclosure of which solely serves the purpose of making people looking for "the truth" or "conspiracies" feel like they uncovered the grand plan. Given that we all already knew, or assumed, that intelligence agencies were sifting through every detail of our lives... why are we surprised to find it confirmed? There are no details released in what we have received as to the exact mechanisms of "how" it is obtained, where it is stored and other specifics that would be needed to fight back against such surveillance... it's more of a wayside confirmation of the existence of a program that we all embraced, by varying extents, prior to the leaks.

    If Snowden's goal was to help evil people hurt other people, thus far he's a failure at it.
    If Snowden's goal was to put a stop to this kind of surveillance, he failed, the government has doubled down and the public, for the most part, doesn't care.
    If Snowden's goal was to alert the public to make them more vigilant, he failed.
    If Snowden's goal was to give misinformation, useless whether true or not, to people at the cost of his own life... he's succeeding... the question is why?
    But in a situation like this we have to look at it from the perspective of current law, since that's what he's working against. Sure, we can talk about ways to make things more "transparent", but in effect that's just a placebo, since we won't actually know any more than we already do. The stuff we REALLY want to know is classified at a level that we would never get access to it at a public level.

    My question is this. Could Snowden have selectively given specific documents to specific organizations that could then go on to file a case in court to have this brought to trial? My guess is, yes, he could have. There are plenty of large organizations that have the money and power to bring these sorts of things to trial.

    Yeah, it's also kind of humorous that everybody is all "up in arms" over this when some of those same people (not specifying people in this thread) already knew in the back of their head that this was going on.

    We could also get into a discussion about "how much is too much" as far as intelligence goes, and that simply changing perception of a situation could put a cloud of guilt over a specific individual, but I'm not sure that discussion belongs in this thread.
    07-11-2013 04:22 PM
  19. retsaw's Avatar
    So we need members of government agencies who don't care to keep secrets of the state safe? That's ultimately committing treason. It'd be a whole different argument in this room if he was leaking information to terrorist affiliates. Everyone would be shouting for his head, then.
    We need people to expose the truth when secret government agencies go too far. If those agencies don't do anything wrong, then the members of those agencies should not feel it is necessary to leak anything and can keep the secrets they promised to keep in good conscience.
    07-11-2013 05:08 PM
  20. llamabreath's Avatar
    This whole controversy would actually have some meaning if 98% of the American public weren't more concerned about American Idol, Paula Dean and Real Housewives of Wherever. This country has completely forgotten about real issues, real problems and has become so very complacent, that we have no security whatsoever. Privacy? In the name of security?

    So sad we are so blind.

    smh

    07-11-2013 05:14 PM
  21. retsaw's Avatar
    Where to begin.....historically speaking those countries with inferior intelligence do worse in times of "war" or conflict. We didn't do so well in Vietnam because we didn't have the intelligence we needed about how the enemy operated.
    Yes, intelligence is needed to fight wars. But you only need intelligence on those you are at war with or those there is a real risk of being at war with in the near future. Is the US at war with its own people?

    Who said anything about big attacks?
    You did.

    Also, who brought up the TSA as a solution to anything?
    No one, I was just clarifying what I meant by having fixed the aeroplane security problem.

    For that matter, who said that any effort to stop attacks was 100% effective?
    No one, but I was making it clear that their current efforts clearly aren't 100% effective, but we have no evidence their dragnet approach to data gathering helps at all.

    If I were to base my arguments on my perceived "future dangers" then I would have plenty. But that's not how I choose to present my points.
    Fair enough.

    I'm also failing to see how comparisons to car accident deaths has any relevance to the discussion at hand.
    It is about weighing potential harms verses benefits, since terrorists don't do a lot of damage, all things considered, there is little benefit to be gained from allowing wholesale privacy invasion by the NSA.

    Unless you're suggesting that we should just let terrorists and other enemies do whatever they want and stop our intelligence gathering efforts.
    Not stop the efforts, but moderate them, and target them properly to focus only on those likely to become terrorists.

    In reference to the bold above, they probably already have plenty of information on all of us. Illegal or not, I believe they would do the same thing. I never said anything or anyone didn't need oversight. I said the way Snowden went about it wasn't the correct way, and that I don't agree with his methods. It caused too much damage to too many things. Should we know? Yes and no. It's a fine balancing act, one that I've already said I'm not capable of properly explaining in a way that will come across the way I mean it (does that make sense LOL).
    If there should be oversight, then I don't think it was working, which means someone needs to expose it. If you say no-one should expose it then there might as well be no oversight. Maybe there wasn't a correct way for Snowden to do what he did, if he went though official channels then it probably would have been hushed up, so he did what needed to be done the way he thought best.
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    07-11-2013 05:49 PM
  22. llamabreath's Avatar
    Yes, intelligence is needed to fight wars. But you only need intelligence on those you are at war with or those there is a real risk of being at war with in the near future. Is the US at war with its own people?

    You did.

    No one, I was just clarifying what I meant by having fixed the aeroplane security problem.

    No one, but I was making it clear that their current efforts clearly aren't 100% effective, but we have no evidence their dragnet approach to data gathering helps at all.

    Fair enough.

    It is about weighing potential harms verses benefits, since terrorists don't do a lot of damage, all things considered, there is little benefit to be gained from allowing wholesale privacy invasion by the NSA.

    Not stop the efforts, but moderate them, and target them properly to focus only on those likely to become terrorists.

    If there should be oversight, then I don't think it was working, which means someone needs to expose it. If you say no-one should expose it then there might as well be no oversight. Maybe there wasn't a correct way for Snowden to do what he did, if he went though official channels then it probably would have been hushed up, so he did what needed to be done the way he thought best.
    I liked everything about this post except for the last paragraph. What Snowden exposed is not surprising at all. He's just out to make a name for himself.

    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 05:59 PM
  23. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Yes, intelligence is needed to fight wars. But you only need intelligence on those you are at war with or those there is a real risk of being at war with in the near future. Is the US at war with its own people?

    You did.

    No one, I was just clarifying what I meant by having fixed the aeroplane security problem.

    No one, but I was making it clear that their current efforts clearly aren't 100% effective, but we have no evidence their dragnet approach to data gathering helps at all.

    Fair enough.

    It is about weighing potential harms verses benefits, since terrorists don't do a lot of damage, all things considered, there is little benefit to be gained from allowing wholesale privacy invasion by the NSA.

    Not stop the efforts, but moderate them, and target them properly to focus only on those likely to become terrorists.

    If there should be oversight, then I don't think it was working, which means someone needs to expose it. If you say no-one should expose it then there might as well be no oversight. Maybe there wasn't a correct way for Snowden to do what he did, if he went though official channels then it probably would have been hushed up, so he did what needed to be done the way he thought best.
    So you're ok with profiling, but based on what criteria?

    He could have went to the EFF, for example.

    I'm not ignoring the rest of your points, but I have yet to see exactly where you would draw the line as far as intelligence gathering goes.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 06:06 PM
  24. llamabreath's Avatar
    ... where you would draw the line as far as intelligence gathering goes.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Does it really matter where we draw the line? Can we draw the line on government spending? Do we even have a choice of who WE want to choose from in an election (not the banks', the media and the lobbyists' choices)?

    We don't even have a pencil to draw anything with. "We the People" are not in control. It should be obvious by now.

    msndrstood likes this.
    07-11-2013 06:15 PM
  25. gollum18's Avatar
    Does it really matter where we draw the line? Can we draw the line on government spending? Do we even have a choice of who WE want to choose from in an election (not the banks', the media and the lobbyists' choices)?

    We don't even have a pencil to draw anything with. "We the People" are not in control. It should be obvious by now.

    Yes that's why a direct popular vote, should replace the electoral college. Too little people truly voting for the president, that can be easily influenced by corporations with tons of money.

    Of course that brings into effect the whole "tyranny by the people" concept. Don't worry nit will probably comment on this.

    Sprint GS3 Running TN's Msg and Chubbs
    cdmjlt369 and msndrstood like this.
    07-11-2013 06:39 PM
196 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Inrix or Waze
    By Mark Zagotti in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 06:41 PM
  2. Just CF rooted. How do I get stuff to go to SD card?
    By ncreptile in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 06:15 PM
  3. Anyone else not using an SD card?
    By droidntn in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 05:14 PM
  4. iPhone to Android: S4, One or Nexus 4?
    By niko_orsini in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 10:16 AM
  5. Not charging on car or laptop cables
    By jeffrok in forum Droid RAZR MAXX
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 11:29 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD