3 ms·

> their versions of the NSA spy on Americans doing the same things we do for them, and then trade the information. Disclosing the things I listed is not requir

> their versions of the NSA spy on Americans doing the same things we do for them, and then trade the information. Disclosing the things I listed is not required to tell us that.

EdHominem 10y ago
Actually, it is. We've had whistleblowers before who tried to censor what they told us and it didn't have half the impact. As long as the leadership of the NSA keeps treasonously lying, all leaks are necessary and thus justified.
- oconnore 10y ago
  Whisleblower protections typically don't have clauses that protect dumping a bunch of juicy, exciting tidbits so that people pay attention. You're informing the public of what they need to know, not making a Jason Bourne movie.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    In this case Snowden was legally required to refuse and report illegal orders. He knew the leaders were well aware of their infractions and wouldn't stop, so he couldn't just report the abuse internally. Unfortunately, dumping juicy tidbits is the only way to get the attention needed to change things. The bad guys are spending our money lying to our politicians about it. Without showing them to be liars again and again (with the release) of these tidbits, they'd simply spin their way out of it.
- icecold12741 10y ago
  Except they didn't lie. He said he saw them lie to Congress but that was for the open-door, public session. If you think Congress isn't getting the details in closed-door, classified briefs, then you don't understand the relationship Intelligence Agencies have with Congress. None of this came as a surprise to any Congressman with interactions with Intel Agencies. Hell, none of this should have come as a surprise if you know anything about security/cybersecurity. As long as there are systems which hide info, there will be backdoors and people trying to break them. The exact same things are being done by every "first world" government on the planet. And sadly, what they do is FAR less intrusive than what Google does. They make text documents out of your phone calls to try and find new products to sell you... They have copies of every text you ever made on an Android device, every site you have visited, every e-mail you wrote or received on Gmail... All the info the NSA gathered that Snowden was "abhorred" by, was less than 1% of what Google has on you. What's the difference? Google will sell it. The NSA may look through it, but they won't sell it to the highest bidder. Every device Google makes is just another way to gather info on their users. They are, first and foremost, an advertising company. And they are the best in the world at that because of all the info they have on all their users.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Testifying to congress, on the public open record, is an important way that "We the People" of the US can audit the government that we hired. It is even more treasonous to lie in such a circumstance. It would be better to refuse to answer the question if you are unable to speak in an open session (though better still is being able to not lie about how you protect the country).
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      That's a common misconception. The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie to protect it if other parties aren't all cleared for it. Congress passed and continues to uphold those laws. They also uphold an Espionage Act so strong even leaking evidence of crimes might be considered misusing classified information. Until Congress fixes those laws, they're in a grey area where they're justified in deceiving others to protect those programs. This is why I've long pushed for people to push for a reform of our classification system. Last I checked, it couldn't be used to hide illegal information as that couldn't be classified in the first place. However, they were operating in a bunch of grey areas related to the Patriot Act, Executive Orders, and the FISC. So, these aren't obviously illegal. Needless to say, I'm for canceling that crap too.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie But it wasn't required. It's not like Clapper was being tortured and had to say something. He should have simply shut up and refused to answer. By lying to congress when he didn't have to, he broke the law. Moreover, by doing/ordering the illegal things we was already a criminal before the investigation. Even if allowed to lie, he's not allowed to violate the constitution. (And such permission could never be granted by anyone chartered by the constitution. Our president can't authorize this, for instance.) > operating in a bunch of grey areas There isn't a grey area. If you're part of government and your actions are outside of what the constitution enumerates, you're breaking the law. If you're a citizen and your actions are outside those forbidden by law, you're not doing anything illegal. It's very clear. As a part of government, he is clearly doing things the people don't think the constitution covers and as such, is a traitor. (It doesn't matter that he can spin a justification, it matter that citizens don't accept it.) I know you aren't arguing that it should be legal, etc. I'm just pointing out that this isn't questionable. It's clearly illegal. Powerful incumbents never get charged for breaking the law but that doesn't make it legal.

> their versions of the NSA spy on Americans doing the same things we do for them, and then trade the information. Disclosing the things I listed is not required to tell us that.

EdHominem 10y ago

Actually, it is. We've had whistleblowers before who tried to censor what they told us and it didn't have half the impact. As long as the leadership of the NSA keeps treasonously lying, all leaks are necessary and thus justified.

oconnore 10y ago
Whisleblower protections typically don't have clauses that protect dumping a bunch of juicy, exciting tidbits so that people pay attention. You're informing the public of what they need to know, not making a Jason Bourne movie.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  In this case Snowden was legally required to refuse and report illegal orders. He knew the leaders were well aware of their infractions and wouldn't stop, so he couldn't just report the abuse internally. Unfortunately, dumping juicy tidbits is the only way to get the attention needed to change things. The bad guys are spending our money lying to our politicians about it. Without showing them to be liars again and again (with the release) of these tidbits, they'd simply spin their way out of it.
icecold12741 10y ago
Except they didn't lie. He said he saw them lie to Congress but that was for the open-door, public session. If you think Congress isn't getting the details in closed-door, classified briefs, then you don't understand the relationship Intelligence Agencies have with Congress. None of this came as a surprise to any Congressman with interactions with Intel Agencies. Hell, none of this should have come as a surprise if you know anything about security/cybersecurity. As long as there are systems which hide info, there will be backdoors and people trying to break them. The exact same things are being done by every "first world" government on the planet. And sadly, what they do is FAR less intrusive than what Google does. They make text documents out of your phone calls to try and find new products to sell you... They have copies of every text you ever made on an Android device, every site you have visited, every e-mail you wrote or received on Gmail... All the info the NSA gathered that Snowden was "abhorred" by, was less than 1% of what Google has on you. What's the difference? Google will sell it. The NSA may look through it, but they won't sell it to the highest bidder. Every device Google makes is just another way to gather info on their users. They are, first and foremost, an advertising company. And they are the best in the world at that because of all the info they have on all their users.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Testifying to congress, on the public open record, is an important way that "We the People" of the US can audit the government that we hired. It is even more treasonous to lie in such a circumstance. It would be better to refuse to answer the question if you are unable to speak in an open session (though better still is being able to not lie about how you protect the country).
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    That's a common misconception. The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie to protect it if other parties aren't all cleared for it. Congress passed and continues to uphold those laws. They also uphold an Espionage Act so strong even leaking evidence of crimes might be considered misusing classified information. Until Congress fixes those laws, they're in a grey area where they're justified in deceiving others to protect those programs. This is why I've long pushed for people to push for a reform of our classification system. Last I checked, it couldn't be used to hide illegal information as that couldn't be classified in the first place. However, they were operating in a bunch of grey areas related to the Patriot Act, Executive Orders, and the FISC. So, these aren't obviously illegal. Needless to say, I'm for canceling that crap too.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie But it wasn't required. It's not like Clapper was being tortured and had to say something. He should have simply shut up and refused to answer. By lying to congress when he didn't have to, he broke the law. Moreover, by doing/ordering the illegal things we was already a criminal before the investigation. Even if allowed to lie, he's not allowed to violate the constitution. (And such permission could never be granted by anyone chartered by the constitution. Our president can't authorize this, for instance.) > operating in a bunch of grey areas There isn't a grey area. If you're part of government and your actions are outside of what the constitution enumerates, you're breaking the law. If you're a citizen and your actions are outside those forbidden by law, you're not doing anything illegal. It's very clear. As a part of government, he is clearly doing things the people don't think the constitution covers and as such, is a traitor. (It doesn't matter that he can spin a justification, it matter that citizens don't accept it.) I know you aren't arguing that it should be legal, etc. I'm just pointing out that this isn't questionable. It's clearly illegal. Powerful incumbents never get charged for breaking the law but that doesn't make it legal.