Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Valmy]

agree with the point of view that this program is bullshit. I also think it is counterproductive to US interests, regardless of the freedom angle.

How is having all this information easily available possibly be bad except for the whole freedom and privacy thing?  This only hurts my interests as a private citizen, it seems to greatly increase the power and effectiveness of the US.

However, I tend to take a suspicious view toward whistleblowers even if they are working for a good cause. This guy is now an international celebrity with a large number of people considering him a hero. He probably can capitalize on that notoriety. His life on the run may consist of living in some really nice places (or he may expect that at least).

He could have made the calculation that this is better than punching a timeclock in anonymity until he turns 65.

Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent?  Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?

[frunk]

That data is incredibly valuable to phone providers for marketing purposes.  I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in publicizing it any more than they have to.

Joan's obvious point is that if demand existed, a competitor should be very interested in publicizing it.

Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?

[Admiral Yi]

Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?

Apparently not.

[Valmy]

Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?

And then wouldn't the providers only be protecting those who have enough to pay for the privilege?

[crazy canuck]

The Berkut-Yi objection is sound: "unfair advantage" is very vague and elastic; how does it not default to simply being whatever you subjectively think is wrong?

Through the wordings of the legislation and the practice by the courts.

You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?

Tell me, why is it that the democratic process is healthy when it supports a notion you support but is vile and broken when it doesn't?

[crazy canuck]

Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent?  Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?

This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred.  Given a complete lack of such information and a the fact he can only point to theoretical possibilities of abuse makes the motivation for his disclosure a lot more dubious.

[Berkut]

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that?  What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge?  Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?

In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?

[Bluebook]

You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?

No, I mean the Swedish legislation and courts. Read back in the thread. 

[Bluebook]

This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred. 

wow...just... 

[crazy canuck]

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that?  What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge?  Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?

In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?

Yep, what the other side is missing is the application of the Rule of Law in all these cases.  They have to construct a world view which assumes the Rule of Law is broken.

[crazy canuck]

This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred. 

wow...just... 

Ok, you tell me one specific incidence in which the information was not used for the purpose it was collected.   Just one instance where it was improperly analyzed contrary to the terms of the Court Order granting access.


You know.  Law 101 stuff.

[Valmy]

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that?  What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge?  Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?

In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?

If that is the case I look forward to coming lawsuits against Verizon.

[crazy canuck]

You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?

No, I mean the Swedish legislation and courts. Read back in the thread.

Forgive me.  I thought you were arguing that US legislators and Courts should adopt the same measures.   If all you are saying is that you have some variant of law the US does not have then I am not sure what relevance your point has to the application of US law.

[crazy canuck]

If that is the case I look forward to coming lawsuits against Verizon.

You may have missed the point that Verizon and others were not selling the data but were giving the data pursuant to a Court Order.

[Berkut]

Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent?  Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?

This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred.  Given a complete lack of such information and a the fact he can only point to theoretical possibilities of abuse makes the motivation for his disclosure a lot more dubious.

For the moment, I am not going to question his motives. He seems like he is someone operating from the perspective of what we would hope someone in his position would be operating from - a genuine desire to do what he sees as right.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but I did see something last night that concerned me a lot about the level of oversight being used. The Feds asked the court for somewhere around 2000 requests to peruse this data last year. And the FISA court approved every single request, without exception.

Now, that could be because the Feds are so perfectly well dialed into what is acceptable and not that they don't even make requests that are pushing the bounds of what is ok. I find that hard to believe though. In fact, I almost would say that if they were doing so, they were not really doing their job. To some extent, I almost want to executive to be pushing the bounds of the grey area, in order to make sure the courts understand where exactly the line is at - it should be a little bit of an adversarial relationship.

But a 100% approval rate suggests to me that what we really have is a rubber stamp - a system where the players are NOT operating in an adversarial manner, and in fact the players are really not separate entities at all, but all the same entity, so "approval" is largely meaningless.

In the last 72 hours, my position on this has shifted a bit.