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

[notdrunk]

The story is starting to become hogwash. The relationship between the NSA and the tech companies is still unknown. Actually, the tech companies want the government to release documents about the relationship. He gives an interview to a Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong exposing US cyberwarfare against China. What was the point of that? Snowden comes off as a paulbot (i.e., irrational "Constitutionalist" aka I don't have a clue what I am talking about ) that was given too much access.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...kong-and-china

[Ben]

[Ben]

The story is starting to become hogwash. The relationship between the NSA and the tech companies is still unknown. Actually, the tech companies want the government to release documents about the relationship. He gives an interview to a Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong exposing US cyberwarfare against China. What was the point of that? Snowden comes off as a paulbot (i.e., irrational "Constitutionalist" aka I don't have a clue what I am talking about ) that was given too much access.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-nsa-requests
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...kong-and-china

One either agrees or disagrees with the leaks. Plus one can support a total surveillance state, as it were.
I don't know anything about Ed Snowden. And I don't care.
I mean, I could care less if someone like Bradley Manning is gay or has gender issues. I mean, they attacked Julian Assange because he wore old running shoes and didn't bathe etc., etc.
I mean, that's what power systems tend to do: attack one's character flaws, as it were. We all have character flaws. None of us are perfect. So to call him a "Paulbot" isn't relevant. (I mean, the FBI were looking into Martin Luther King's private life to see if he was carrying out multiple affairs. What does that have to do with him being a great civil and human rights leader?)
What's important is the issue at hand.
And as Glenn Greenwald aptly pointed out: we should have a democratic debate about whether or not we want to live in a [complete] surveillance state.
Because Dems, for the most part, will support it because it's Obama. But what about when, say, a President Marco Rubio takes over the office.... Dems can't complain. Because he'll carry on the same policies as Obama.

[Ben]

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance:

[notdrunk]

One either agrees or disagrees with the leaks. Plus one can support a total surveillance state, as it were.
I don't know anything about Ed Snowden. And I don't care.
I mean, I could care less if someone like Bradley Manning is gay or has gender issues. I mean, they attacked Julian Assange because he wore old running shoes and didn't bathe etc., etc.
I mean, that's what power systems tend to do: attack one's character flaws, as it were. We all have character flaws. None of us are perfect. So to call him a "Paulbot" isn't relevant. (I mean, the FBI were looking into Martin Luther King's private life to see if he was carrying out multiple affairs. What does that have to do with him being a great civil and human rights leader?)
What's important is the issue at hand.
And as Glenn Greenwald aptly pointed out: we should have a democratic debate about whether or not we want to live in a [complete] surveillance state.
Because Dems, for the most part, will support it because it's Obama. But what about when, say, a President Marco Rubio takes over the office.... Dems can't complain. Because he'll carry on the same policies as Obama.

Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.

Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.

[Stavros]

Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.

Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.

Notdrunk, I think you are right to question this story in the manner in which it has been reported. Obama has come in for a lot of flak, but the PRISM system originated after 9/11 with the Bush Administration and is subject to rules established in law which do not appear to give the US govt absolute access to any information it wants wherever it sits- the link below is a severe critique of Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian articles that started this off.

As for surveillance, for heaven's sake, hasn't anyone read Foucault? Maybe he is out of fashion but he was writing about methods of surveillance -formal and informal- going back at least 200 years- you could argue that the pressure on small town folk in Virginia in 1810 to go to church on a Sunday amounted to a form of social, collective surveillance, think of Arthur Miller's The Crucible be it Salem in the 17thc or McCarthy's USA in the 1950s; the UK has more CC cameras per square inch than any other country in the world -when people see that vile murderer caught on tape moments before he snatched X and bundled him/her into a car, they approve of it. Do people peek at their neighbours from the window? What are they using this info for?

There are some serious issues here, and it may that people with Facebook accounts or some social media which identifies them by name and has their photo are at greatest risk -not just from prying govt convinced that Ali Mustafa or Sean MacBride are 'potential terrorists'- but from some criminal (Russian, I suppose) who needs your ID to create fake documents.

Be careful out there!
https://medium.com/prism-truth/82a1791c94d3

[Ben]

Paulbots are a special bred of people. I have dealt with them in-person a few times. They come off kooky. Personally, there shouldn't be a "democratic" debate. This country isn't a democracy. One of the main purposes of the NSA is surveillance. The purpose of "leaking"/whistleblowing is to expose illegal things. PRISM falls under FISA and its goal isn't to target Americans.

Don't you find it odd that the media hasn't released all the information that Snowden gave them? Even the media knows that he stole particular information that he shouldn't of.

Paulbots -- ha ha!
You can certainly find some of [former congressman] Ron Paul's positions objectionable. That's fine. I mean, I think most of his supporters are white middle-class males in their 20s. I could be wrong. I haven't done any detailed study.
I liked some of Paul's positions. And others, well, I vehemently disagreed with.
I can't really say I'm a fan of any politician. Why would one be???
Do you think there is some type of conspiracy involving the media... with respect to: "... all the information that Snowden gave them."
Well, Glenn Greenwald did address that. He pointed out that they won't release certain things. Because they may indeed harm national security.
That's why Snowden approached The Guardian. He wanted them to go over it. And pointed out: he isn't a journalist.
We shouldn't have a democratic debate then? So: why do we go through all the rigmoral of elections if they literally mean nothing? Are we simply verifying, as it were, the elite decision-makers like Bush Sr. and Jr. and Clinton and Obama? I mean, choosing between Obama and McCain &/or Romney was essentially choosing between which elitist, as it were, will rule us --
Do we not even have some semblance of democracy -- ha ha!
I agree this country is not a democracy and was never intended to be a democracy. (I mean, 70 percent of the population have no influence over public policy. None. Zero. Zilch. We live in a polyarchy -- or a plutocracy. The further up the income ladder you go, well, you've more influence. Over public policy. And those at the very top -- think: the Kochs, Adelson, Gates, Ellison, the Walton clan -- get what they want. Because they own the country. And the people who own it, well, run it.)

[fred41]

Off topic for the moment:

The terms:"I mean" and "as it were" should be used sparingly, if at all.

...carry on.

[Ben]

Whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn says State Department investigators threatened to prosecute her for providing documents to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...lower/2413265/

[Ben]

Dick Cheney: Snowden's A 'TRAITOR,' Defends NSA Surveillance Programs: