Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[garbon]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

No, nor does Greenwald, but you'd expect that. I mean surely he wouldn't be leaking this if he thought everything was fine.

But that's the problem with leaks for me. As I say democracies need secrets and there is a good reason why, if you're given a certain level of clearance, we expect you to keep those secrets and you're legally required to do so. One employee being outraged, angry, suspicious or worried shouldn't automatically be lauded for breaking the law.

As I say I don't think he's like Manning, he seems like the sort of person Manning supporters wished he was. My view is that a leak like this is only really justified if there's evidence of an agency going beyond the law, which so far, there isn't. The other view though is whether there were any remedies he had open to him and chances are there were very few - so he took his chance and seems prepared to take the consequences for leaking. I think it's personally admirable, but so far I also think he was wrong.

I'll agree with this.

[Iormlund]

This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.

CCTV only works in public areas.

[crazy canuck]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

In what way?

That's the message I got from the video I linked above. This part for example: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

But he is saying he had the authority to do it.  He may not particularly undertand how he came to be authorized but that speaks more to his lack of knowlegde than the lack of process which ultimately gave him that authority.

[Sheilbh]

This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.

CCTV only works in public areas.

I think the internet's a pretty public area.

And there's CCTV in all sorts of private places that, with a warrant, the police can access.

[Zanza]

My view is that a leak like this is only really justified if there's evidence of an agency going beyond the law, which so far, there isn't.

I think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.

[crazy canuck]

My view is that a leak like this is only really justified if there's evidence of an agency going beyond the law, which so far, there isn't.

I think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.

These were authorized by Court Order.  Also, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future.  Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.

[Zanza]

And there's CCTV in all sorts of private places that, with a warrant, the police can access.

Yes, but the NSA doesn't need a warrant for specific information. They apparently have a general wholesale warrant for everything.

[Zanza]

These were authorized by Court Order.

Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.

Also, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future.  Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.

Fair enough. He talks about abuse he saw on a regular basis. Let's see if he can substantiate it.

[Sheilbh]

I think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.

Okay but that's a debate to be had at elections and by our representatives - as well as the judiciary ensuring that unconstitutional laws are struck down. Personally I don't want our spies to be engaged in too much civil disobedience, it sounds as worrying as the BBC crime drama about a maverick judge.

As I say I can personally admire him for breaking the law and being willing to take the consequences, it could even be a good thing that he provokes this debate and I'm not entirely sure how secret all of this needed to be, but I'm still uncomfortable with lauding an individual in the intelligence services breaking the law by revealing state secrets and being lauded for it. He may well be right and personally feel justified, but others may feel the same over other issues and release information that hurts our national interests.

Yes, but the NSA doesn't need a warrant for specific information. They apparently have a general wholesale warrant for everything.

From what I've read they do need a warrant for specific information. They have a general warrant to collect the data and can analyse it in the general - so they could wiretap the President or whatever. But to actually look at specific information, to read that individual wiretap, they still need a warrant.

[Sheilbh]

Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.

Surely that's what constitutions and things like the Convention of Human Rights are for?

[crazy canuck]

These were authorized by Court Order.

Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.

Also, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future.  Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.

Fair enough. He talks about abuse he saw on a regular basis. Let's see if he can substantiate it.

My point was that you were focusing on the legislative laws as not being worthy of following.  But the constitutionality is largely in the realm of the Court and that branch of government has also been involved.  This is not some adventurous government agency off on its own.

If he can substantiate some kind of abuse then my view might change.   But for now I am a bit mystified as to why now.

[Zanza]

Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.

Surely that's what constitutions and things like the Convention of Human Rights are for?

Yes.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As I said before, I feel the spirit of this is violated with unspecific court orders allowing unlimited data collection. What is the probable cause? What is particularly describing the place or the persons or the things to be seized?

[The Brain]

This is J Edgar Hoover's wet dream.

[Tamas]

I am a firm believer in the right to privacy and of the maximisation of individual liberties.

However, you cannot uninvent technologies: and the same technologies that permit us the unprecedented ease of communication can, very easily, be used for unprecedented levels of monitoring.

So it's not just a philosophical question. You can't merely wish away these technologies by waving a list of sacred principles in the air. So I think we have to get used to the fact that advanced states are going to have recourse to these sorts of monitoring technologies.

The preservation of civil liberties and rights, therefore, should be down to careful institutional controls and oversight. Organisations like the NSA and GCHQ should be able to do their work, but not without custodians watching them. The representatives of the people should have the final say over what is permitted with the information collected, and what may be collected.

I've only briefly dived into PRISM, but nothing I've seen so far strikes me as a particular affront to deeply held values of due process and primacy of the law.

Basically my point is that things like PRISM won't go away, but there are ways to manage their use, in the same way we have shackles on other potential abuses of power (and much worse ones at that -- I'd rather have my e-mails read than get batoned in the face by the police officer) that, for all their faults, generally work.

errr, I am sorry, but the technology exists to keep all citizens locked down behind barbed wire, guard towers, machine gun guard posts, armored car patrols, DNS sample database, visa requirements to leav home towns, etc.

We (as in democratic states) do not endure these, because we do not let our governments do them.
Why should it be otherwise for a complete database of people's lives for decades back. You are already living your life in a lot of ways online, that is only going to increase, for the betterment of humanity  (unless people becomes afraid of surveilance). You obviously have not grasped the implications of this.

Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.

[crazy canuck]

As I said before, I feel the spirit of this is violated with unspecific court orders allowing unlimited data collection. What is the probable cause? What is particularly describing the place or the persons or the things to be seized?

No this isnt.  In part this is the government obtaining Court Orders that they can view numbers called and length of call.  If they wanted to listen to the substance of the calls they would have to obtain further orders in the same way as other wire tap authorizations.

What is unspecific and unlimited are the vague allegations being made by this guy for a reason which is difficult to discern.