Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

[Elok]

I'm going to go with Felch on this; the most troubling part of this is that we have no way of knowing what they are or are not doing at any given time. "What are we doing? Well, that's a secret, but the courts are supervising us. Of course, you can't verify that either; in the broadest sense, you cannot be 100% certain that the courts in question even exist." There may be a price to be paid for security, but at present the price is "whatever you need to take," with us trusting that they won't take too much. I'd like to see something vaguely resembling transparency somewhere in the process.

[DaShi]

He did leak things that we should be honest about. There's no reason for this sort of program to be kept private. Terrorists must assume that the government can spy on them, so it's hardly giving away crucial secrets. Americans need to know the scope of the surveillance state, so that we can be informed citizens.

Terrorists may not be aware of the extent that the U.S. is spying on them. As much as I am in favor of making as much government data public, there are things that should not be. This is why we have elected officials, policies, and courts to make these decisions. The American populous will never have enough information to make these kinds of decisions on their own. If a line has been crossed, then it is good for someone to speak out. However, who decides that line? Snowden anointed himself as the arbitrator of what is right and wrong.

[kentonio]

I'm going to go with Felch on this; the most troubling part of this is that we have no way of knowing what they are or are not doing at any given time. "What are we doing? Well, that's a secret, but the courts are supervising us. Of course, you can't verify that either; in the broadest sense, you cannot be 100% certain that the courts in question even exist." There may be a price to be paid for security, but at present the price is "whatever you need to take," with us trusting that they won't take too much. I'd like to see something vaguely resembling transparency somewhere in the process.

Exactly, especially as the elected officials who act as final oversight are apparently also being spied on. The potential for blackmail is horrific.

[DaShi]

I'm going to go with Felch on this; the most troubling part of this is that we have no way of knowing what they are or are not doing at any given time. "What are we doing? Well, that's a secret, but the courts are supervising us. Of course, you can't verify that either; in the broadest sense, you cannot be 100% certain that the courts in question even exist." There may be a price to be paid for security, but at present the price is "whatever you need to take," with us trusting that they won't take too much. I'd like to see something vaguely resembling transparency somewhere in the process.

No matter what, there will be people who don't believe what information the government releases. There will be conspiracy theorists calling everything into question. You can't derail the whole system just to appease the paranoia and narcissism of a few.

[kentonio]

If a line has been crossed, then it is good for someone to speak out. However, who decides that line? Snowden anointed himself as the arbitrator of what is right and wrong.

If someone like Snowden doesn't reveal that there is an issue, then how can anyone judge whether a line has been crossed or not?

[DaShi]

Exactly, especially as the elected officials who act as final oversight are apparently also being spied on. The potential for blackmail is horrific.

Exactly the type of conspiracy theories that I'm talking about.

[kentonio]

If a line has been crossed, then it is good for someone to speak out. However, who decides that line? Snowden anointed himself as the arbitrator of what is right and wrong.

If someone like Snowden doesn't reveal that there is an issue, then how can anyone judge whether a line has been crossed or not?

[kentonio]

Exactly the type of conspiracy theories that I'm talking about.

Sure, it's a conspiracy theory. Here's the guy who's whistle blowing led to a Pulitzer Prize winning story about NSA domestic wiretapping, talking about personally seeing the order to tap Barack Obama when he was a senator. Can I have my tin foil hat now?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-n...ss-tice-2013-6

[Elok]

There was a flurry of articles on this in yesterday's WaPo. It seems the relevant law was changed two or three times in the past decade or so, so that they can now ask the court for "warrants" amounting to carte blanche. Such as, for example, "we want to track usage patterns by every damn Verizon customer so we can mine the noise for useful data." This is actually somewhat encouraging, in a sense, because the fact that they bothered to change the law means that they still intend to care what the law says in the first place. Presumptively, anyway. The general lack of accountability here is more troubling to me than any particular use they might put these powers to. I trust nobody to stay moral when the lights are out.

[DaShi]

Sure, it's a conspiracy theory. Here's the guy who's whistle blowing led to a Pulitzer Prize winning story about NSA domestic wiretapping, talking about personally seeing the order to tap Barack Obama when he was a senator. Can I have my tin foil hat now?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-n...ss-tice-2013-6

I hope you notice that my argument is that not all whistleblowing is wrong. Snowden didn't report on that kind of activity. He announced a classified program that had the approval of the courts to view metadata. Anything arguments about wiretapping are pure speculation.

[DaShi]

There was a flurry of articles on this in yesterday's WaPo. It seems the relevant law was changed two or three times in the past decade or so, so that they can now ask the court for "warrants" amounting to carte blanche. Such as, for example, "we want to track usage patterns by every damn Verizon customer so we can mine the noise for useful data." This is actually somewhat encouraging, in a sense, because the fact that they bothered to change the law means that they still intend to care what the law says in the first place. Presumptively, anyway. The general lack of accountability here is more troubling to me than any particular use they might put these powers to. I trust nobody to stay moral when the lights are out.

You are begging the question here.

[Elok]

If someone like Snowden doesn't reveal that there is an issue, then how can anyone judge whether a line has been crossed or not?

The individual conscience seems to be the only meaningful brake left in the system. Maybe there are others built in, but we won't know because they won't tell us anything. When asked point-blank, they simply lie. The real beauty of many of our freedoms is that they provide accountability; you can't do skeezy **** without somebody tattling on you to the public. And that is why, despite what we sometimes consider severe problems with corruption, we are not nearly as bad as China, where endemic rot has set in and every public service is understood to be for sale to whoever has the cash.

[notyoueither]

He did leak things that we should be honest about. There's no reason for this sort of program to be kept private. Terrorists must assume that the government can spy on them, so it's hardly giving away crucial secrets. Americans need to know the scope of the surveillance state, so that we can be informed citizens.

This.

[DaShi]

The individual conscience seems to be the only meaningful brake left in the system. Maybe there are others built in, but we won't know because they won't tell us anything. When asked point-blank, they simply lie. The real beauty of many of our freedoms is that they provide accountability; you can't do skeezy **** without somebody tattling on you to the public. And that is why, despite what we sometimes consider severe problems with corruption, we are not nearly as bad as China, where endemic rot has set in and every public service is understood to be for sale to whoever has the cash.

Again, a reckless release of all information would not solve these problems. In fact, it would create a host of new ones far more destructive than the secrets themselves.

China system punishes whistleblowers far more vigilantly than the U.S. There are no laws or courts to protect them. It has less to do with cash and more to do with party image. In fact, outing officials who take grafts is quite common provided that they are low enough level and the overall image and authority of the party is preserved.

[Sava]

We just saw the residents of Boston willingly comply with house arrest because a couple criminals were on the loose.

The fight is lost.

Oh boo hoo. People got to stay home all day and not go to work.

ITS FASCSISM