I'm still kind of torn on the whole Snowden thing. It's amost as if he detonated a nuke and some people say "that's horrible, look at all the dead people" and the other side that says "look at all of the bad guys it killed".Con_Alma;1559196 wrote:Gee...Maybe Eric Snowden didn't help the U.S. citizens but rather hurt them.
That would be the guy that was incorrectly referenced and carries the birth name as Edward Snowden.justincredible;1559216 wrote:Who in the world is Eric Snowden?
How does that sentence suggest he hurt them?Con_Alma;1559196 wrote:Gee...Maybe Eric Snowden didn't help the U.S. citizens but rather hurt them.
"...Re-read that a few times and let it sink in. Pauley is essentially saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because Congress never intended for targets to ever know that they were subject to this sort of spying. And that the fact that everyone knows about it now, thanks to Edward Snowden, doesn't change the targets' ability to challenge the legality of the order. ..."
Yeah. If anything, as opposed to hurting the people, he at least did something to facilitate a response that perfectly illustrates how shady the NSA is. If no one knows, there's no "BECAUSE WE SAID IT'S COOL!!!!!" response because no one knows.O-Trap;1559225 wrote:How does that sentence suggest he hurt them?
If anything, it just doesn't help them.
Person A: *surfs Internet*
Person B: "Um ... hi, Person A. Did you know you were being spied on by the NSA?"
Person A: "That's not cool. I'm going to challenge the legality of that."
NSA: "You can't, because you were never supposed to know."
Person B is hardly making anything worse in the example above. If anything, he's pointing out that the NSA is being shady. Whether or not they use an illogical defense for what they're doing doesn't change that.
How is that worse?Con_Alma;1559228 wrote:The monitoring is no longer being done secretively. The public has been notified such communications are not private. There is now court precedence dismissing the constitutional argument.
Exactly. Knowledge trumps ignorance every time.Heretic;1559230 wrote:Yeah. If anything, as opposed to hurting the people, he at least did something to facilitate a response that perfectly illustrates how shady the NSA is. If no one knows, there's no "BECAUSE WE SAID IT'S COOL!!!!!" response because no one knows.
The precedent for what you're suggesting is that it isn't likely an elected representative would have done anything about it.Con_Alma;1559233 wrote:It can be more difficult to cease the practice now as opposed to it having been challenged in another manner such as by an elected representative.
...and now we will never know.O-Trap;1559243 wrote:The precedent for what you're suggesting is that it isn't likely an elected representative would have done anything about it.
Why ought we trust some new elected official to be so different on the matter?
That's what I meant. I worded it poorly. Basically you are in "public" when surfing the internet, even in the privacy of your own home. It's the digital version of going down to Starbucks to chat-up the unemployed pretending to be writers.Manhattan Buckeye;1559584 wrote: There should be zero expectation of privacy for anything you do on the internet, or via your work server.
Been doing that since 1945believer;1559323 wrote:Basically our government has granted itself permission to invade the privacy of its citizenry ostensibly for reasons of national security. The citizenry has no recourse against domestic spying because the people aren't supposed to be aware of the practice so therefore the practice officially doesn't exist.
What's different is the govt has the ability to access far, far more information than they ever have - not only a given point in time but also the ability to go back and retrace an extensive digital trail.ptown_trojans_1;1559854 wrote:While I do think they should reign the NSA in, keep in mind, the intelligence agencies have been doing this since 1945.
All throughout the Cold War, this is essentially what they did.
So, don't be shocked or angry.
Perhaps, although the CIA did do a lot more intrusive measures during the Cold War.gut;1559868 wrote:What's different is the govt has the ability to access far, far more information than they ever have - not only a given point in time but also the ability to go back and retrace an extensive digital trail.
Maybe so, but it's a different animal on that vs. the ease (and quantity) with which they hack anyone's digital footprint.ptown_trojans_1;1559873 wrote:Perhaps, although the CIA did do a lot more intrusive measures during the Cold War.
It's a different animal when you are talking tech people, the best and brightest of which are working for the tech giants and emerging companies, or founding their own start-ups.Manhattan Buckeye;1559888 wrote:For some reason I think the CIA people in the Cold War era were a bit more intelligent and qualified and had some idea what they were doing.
