3 ms·

What's your point? Regardless of the personalities involved, I don't think anyone has refuted the facts of the leaked documents. Yes, humans are human and nobod

What's your point? Regardless of the personalities involved, I don't think anyone has refuted the facts of the leaked documents. Yes, humans are human and nobody is a perfect angel or robot ... but what does that have to do with the facts of what was released?

eternalban 10y ago
Let's review the leak: * NSA spies on foreign governments. Isn't that their job? * NSA spies on Americans, & has compromised infrastructure. Your first assumption here is that the ruling elite won't want you to know that. Have you ever considered they wanted you to know without official acknowledgement? Go find an oldhand AT&T geek and ask them about the telephony and NSA. > Regardless of the personalities involved You would have a point if Snowden had released the material to non-corporate actors (how about UN's human rights commission) and wasn't on the talking head [1] road show pontificating on various matters. If the actor is false then the road show is a cause for concern, don't you agree? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_... I want to see a pic of our hero in Moscow, holding today's edition of whatever passes for journalism in Russia, posted to twitter, to start with.
- icecold12741 10y ago
  Another point to be made is that while they say that "much has changed due to his actions" not all has been positive. Several court cases came out after this affirming the idea that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for any internet-facing machine. In fact, the District Court in Virginia this month said that the FBI had the legal right to install malware on the computer of someone who visited a child pornography site. The ruling basically stated that in the modern era of technology, the general consensus is that no public-facing technology is safe from exploitation, so by using it (it being a computer), he acknowledged the risk that everything he did would be made available for observation from a 3rd party (whether a company or the government). Google won a case a few years ago to the same effect. They were sued for scanning a private business' e-mail traffic and using it to target advertising. That court also ruled that if it was unencrypted communication, moving across "public" lines, then it was fair game for anyone who could intercept it.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    > "no reasonable expectation of privacy" Exactly.

eternalban 10y ago

Let's review the leak: * NSA spies on foreign governments. Isn't that their job? * NSA spies on Americans, & has compromised infrastructure. Your first assumption here is that the ruling elite won't want you to know that. Have you ever considered they wanted you to know without official acknowledgement? Go find an oldhand AT&T geek and ask them about the telephony and NSA. > Regardless of the personalities involved You would have a point if Snowden had released the material to non-corporate actors (how about UN's human rights commission) and wasn't on the talking head [1] road show pontificating on various matters. If the actor is false then the road show is a cause for concern, don't you agree? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_... I want to see a pic of our hero in Moscow, holding today's edition of whatever passes for journalism in Russia, posted to twitter, to start with.

icecold12741 10y ago
Another point to be made is that while they say that "much has changed due to his actions" not all has been positive. Several court cases came out after this affirming the idea that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for any internet-facing machine. In fact, the District Court in Virginia this month said that the FBI had the legal right to install malware on the computer of someone who visited a child pornography site. The ruling basically stated that in the modern era of technology, the general consensus is that no public-facing technology is safe from exploitation, so by using it (it being a computer), he acknowledged the risk that everything he did would be made available for observation from a 3rd party (whether a company or the government). Google won a case a few years ago to the same effect. They were sued for scanning a private business' e-mail traffic and using it to target advertising. That court also ruled that if it was unencrypted communication, moving across "public" lines, then it was fair game for anyone who could intercept it.
- eternalban 10y ago
  > "no reasonable expectation of privacy" Exactly.