4 ms·

>and people are ok with that. All the propagandists said he was a Russian asset, as if even if that were true, it somehow negated the fact that we were now liv

>and people are ok with that. All the propagandists said he was a Russian asset, as if even if that were true, it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state. >Snowden pointed and everyone looked at his finger. This is a great way of putting it.

lesuorac 2y ago
> it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state. There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping. There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies. FISA [1] isn't a private law either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... Note: 2006 (Klien) predates 2013 (Snowden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
- Clubber 2y ago
  >There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    You are dense. Imagine a government authorizes 10B for a bridge and then in 5 years a bridge shows up. Now instead, imagine in 1978 [1] a government authorizes "United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil" and in 2008 [2] amends it to not be a big deal if they're foreign or not and then 5 years later it turns out they're doing just that. These bills are not secret. Were not secret. Have never been secret. It's not my fault you didn't read them but it doesn't make Snowden novel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >You are dense. Well, maybe you're one of those propagandists. If you can't attack the idea, attack the person, right? Hand waves, nothing new to see here, carry on. The bills aren't what were exposed, it was more the techniques and scope. Like PRISM and XKeyScore and circumventing laws by sharing intelligence on US citizens with allies who aren't restricted by US laws. Spying on allied governments, etc. You know, that stuff. You should really click on the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
      - dialup_sounds 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON Et cetera. These aren't new issues. The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.
        Clubber 2y ago
        >The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information. Damn the gall, give it a rest. Again, methods and scope. Which one of those exposes PRISM, XKeyScore and the NSA infiltrating Google servers? Which one of those exposes the companies that willingly "integrated" with the NSA? Which of those exposes US government spying on allied governments, recording private conversations, etc? Saying Snowden didn't reveal anything is a silly hill to die on. What is your prerogative in minimizing the exposure? Do you work for one of the companies implicated in participating in prism or something? Microsoft joined PRISM on 9/11/2007 (fitting) Yahoo joined PRISM on 3/12/08 Google joined PRISM on 1/4/09 Facebook joined PRISM on 6/3/09 YouTube joined PRISM on 9/24/10 Skype joined PRISM on 2/6/11 AOL joined PRISM on 3/11/11 Apple, the last holdout on the list, joined PRISM 10/12 (after Jobs died). OP, this is why it seems nobody cares, there's plenty of people trying to sway public opinion on the matter by minimizing it. Nobody wants to believe their government would do things like this, so when someone offers that, "hey it's not so bad," they want to believe it. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping. Laws which the telecoms were knowingly and willfully breaking for years. You do remember that Congress gave them retroactive immunity? [0][1] You do know that this was only granted because people COULD sue (and were suing) them because of the information made public by Snowden and others? [0] <https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-telecom-immunity-unconstitutional https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-tele...> [1] See Title II of the this bill <https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304 https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304>
- roenxi 2y ago
  There was something substantially new after Snowden though - prior to his leaks if you pointed out what the US government was likely up to people would laugh at the idea and ask for more sources. Afterwards they tended just accept it. There was a big cultural shift from the default assumption in polite company being "They're spying on Middle Easterners" to "they're spying on everyone, everywhere" when talking about US spying.

lesuorac 2y ago

> it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state. There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping. There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies. FISA [1] isn't a private law either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... Note: 2006 (Klien) predates 2013 (Snowden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

Clubber 2y ago
>There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
- lesuorac 2y ago
  You are dense. Imagine a government authorizes 10B for a bridge and then in 5 years a bridge shows up. Now instead, imagine in 1978 [1] a government authorizes "United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil" and in 2008 [2] amends it to not be a big deal if they're foreign or not and then 5 years later it turns out they're doing just that. These bills are not secret. Were not secret. Have never been secret. It's not my fault you didn't read them but it doesn't make Snowden novel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >You are dense. Well, maybe you're one of those propagandists. If you can't attack the idea, attack the person, right? Hand waves, nothing new to see here, carry on. The bills aren't what were exposed, it was more the techniques and scope. Like PRISM and XKeyScore and circumventing laws by sharing intelligence on US citizens with allies who aren't restricted by US laws. Spying on allied governments, etc. You know, that stuff. You should really click on the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON Et cetera. These aren't new issues. The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.
      - Clubber 2y ago
        >The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information. Damn the gall, give it a rest. Again, methods and scope. Which one of those exposes PRISM, XKeyScore and the NSA infiltrating Google servers? Which one of those exposes the companies that willingly "integrated" with the NSA? Which of those exposes US government spying on allied governments, recording private conversations, etc? Saying Snowden didn't reveal anything is a silly hill to die on. What is your prerogative in minimizing the exposure? Do you work for one of the companies implicated in participating in prism or something? Microsoft joined PRISM on 9/11/2007 (fitting) Yahoo joined PRISM on 3/12/08 Google joined PRISM on 1/4/09 Facebook joined PRISM on 6/3/09 YouTube joined PRISM on 9/24/10 Skype joined PRISM on 2/6/11 AOL joined PRISM on 3/11/11 Apple, the last holdout on the list, joined PRISM 10/12 (after Jobs died). OP, this is why it seems nobody cares, there's plenty of people trying to sway public opinion on the matter by minimizing it. Nobody wants to believe their government would do things like this, so when someone offers that, "hey it's not so bad," they want to believe it. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
simoncion 2y ago
> There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping. Laws which the telecoms were knowingly and willfully breaking for years. You do remember that Congress gave them retroactive immunity? [0][1] You do know that this was only granted because people COULD sue (and were suing) them because of the information made public by Snowden and others? [0] <https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-telecom-immunity-unconstitutional https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-tele...> [1] See Title II of the this bill <https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304 https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304>
roenxi 2y ago
There was something substantially new after Snowden though - prior to his leaks if you pointed out what the US government was likely up to people would laugh at the idea and ask for more sources. Afterwards they tended just accept it. There was a big cultural shift from the default assumption in polite company being "They're spying on Middle Easterners" to "they're spying on everyone, everywhere" when talking about US spying.