4 ms·

Weird how there is limited hard evidence of a secret, illegal government program... It's a lot more than I've seen than evidence for the claims of Yandex proact

Weird how there is limited hard evidence of a secret, illegal government program... It's a lot more than I've seen than evidence for the claims of Yandex proactively sharing data with the Russian government. Also where do you see Venezuela?

riku_iki 4y ago
So, no proof, no evidence. Ok. > It's a lot more than I've seen than evidence for the claims of Yandex proactively sharing data with the Russian government. The difference is that checks and balances are much stronger in US, and such activities can be successfully investigated and government sued. As an example, your verizon case was successfully challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama In Russia, court system works in manual mode from Kremlin. > Also where do you see Venezuela? I misread, you are right.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  > The difference is that checks and balances are much stronger in US, You say that after we were talking about the NSA literally spying on US citizens, and without any proof? C'mon, are you really going to badger me about not having having the exact "hard evidence", and not even read my sources or provide ANY evidence yourself. edit: Yes, it got challenged AFTER needing to be leaked by a whistleblower that still can't return to his home.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    > Yes, it got challenged AFTER needing to be leaked by a whistleblower that still can't return to his home. Good chance is that whistleblowing would be protected in this specific case.
    - waffleiron 4y ago
      Yes no, > Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.
      - riku_iki 4y ago
        "Yes no" what? Government can charge him with whatever they want, it is up to court to decide if charges are valid.
      - ok123456 4y ago
        The Espionage Act has no whistleblower protection. If the courts were allowed rule honestly and without political entanglements, there's no way the Espionage Act is constitutional at prima facia.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >So, no proof, no evidence. Do you really expect the US government to literally publish their illegal surveillance operations on Wikipedia as proof? Snowden's leaks and his statements should be enough to understand the big-tech surveillance apparatus aids the government under the table.

riku_iki 4y ago

So, no proof, no evidence. Ok. > It's a lot more than I've seen than evidence for the claims of Yandex proactively sharing data with the Russian government. The difference is that checks and balances are much stronger in US, and such activities can be successfully investigated and government sued. As an example, your verizon case was successfully challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama In Russia, court system works in manual mode from Kremlin. > Also where do you see Venezuela? I misread, you are right.

waffleiron 4y ago
> The difference is that checks and balances are much stronger in US, You say that after we were talking about the NSA literally spying on US citizens, and without any proof? C'mon, are you really going to badger me about not having having the exact "hard evidence", and not even read my sources or provide ANY evidence yourself. edit: Yes, it got challenged AFTER needing to be leaked by a whistleblower that still can't return to his home.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  > Yes, it got challenged AFTER needing to be leaked by a whistleblower that still can't return to his home. Good chance is that whistleblowing would be protected in this specific case.
  - waffleiron 4y ago
    Yes no, > Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      "Yes no" what? Government can charge him with whatever they want, it is up to court to decide if charges are valid.
    - ok123456 4y ago
      The Espionage Act has no whistleblower protection. If the courts were allowed rule honestly and without political entanglements, there's no way the Espionage Act is constitutional at prima facia.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>So, no proof, no evidence. Do you really expect the US government to literally publish their illegal surveillance operations on Wikipedia as proof? Snowden's leaks and his statements should be enough to understand the big-tech surveillance apparatus aids the government under the table.