Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...

[Ben]

Republican National Committee renounces the National Security Agency’s surveillance program:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/24/rn...lance-program/

[martin48]

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9093215.html

[trish]

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9093215.html

Now that's an interesting development. Of course, since Obama won the prize some years back, it holds no clout for the right wing. Still, it doesn't look too good for the U.S. to be denying immunity for the very action that won a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

[Ben]

Even At 35,000 Feet The Government Can Spy On You:

[sukumvit boy]

Lots of play in the media with the publication of Glenn Greenwald's new book "No Place To Hide".Amazon.com: No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State eBook: Glenn Greenwald: Kindle Store@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41OE85ZovLL.@@AMEPARAM@@41OE85ZovLL

[broncofan]

I read the introduction to Glenn Greenwald's book, which was available for free at Amazon. Predictably, he compares our system of wiretapping for national security purposes to surveillance that has been done in the name of maintaining compliance, fear, and conformity among the public of various states (both real and fictional). It's an argument that depends for its effect on paranoia. He reasons that any widespread surveillance begins with a legitimate purpose and then is broadened and used for nefarious purposes. But at least in the introduction, he doesn't claim that the NSA surveillance has been used to sniff out political dissidents or party traitors or to identify politically subversive activity.

His discussion of the fourth amendment, at least initially, is also deceptive. He talks about how the fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. He then takes it for granted that these protections were intended to protect privacy as we currently understand it. But it's not at all clear that our founding fathers did not mean it to only protect people against physical invasions. Certainly they never contemplated the nature of the surveillance that currently takes place, but it's possible they would find it much less intrusive than having people physically rifle through one's possessions during a search. I think privacy is important, but there also needs to be a balance between privacy and security. I agree that we haven't found it, and any system of surveillance badly needs oversight, but I am not convinced we are on our way to becoming a police state.

I also think Snowden's actions are hypocritical. I cannot understand how he can claim he was resigned to the fact that he was risking his life, but instead of being willing to explain his actions in open court, he flees to any jurisdiction without an extradition treaty. He finally decides upon a country that will grant him sanctuary, but which has actually engaged in the types of extreme practices meant to stifle dissent and free association that his supporters claim they are afraid of. Just my view...subject to change.

[Ben]

Edward Snowden Interview with Brian Williams FULL Part 3:

[robertlouis]

Joe Biden suggests that Snowden should "man up" and return to the US to face US justice.

Maybe the NSA and the White House should also "man up" and admit just how all pervasive, intrusive, and illegal their surveillance activities are. Or am I expecting too much?

[Prospero]

You expect too much.... and they have your number Robert Louis...

[robertlouis]

You expect too much.... and they have your number Robert Louis...

And I have yours so they do too.....