7 ms·

White House presses Russia to expel Snowden; sharp words for China

39 points by titlex 13y ago

mark_l_watson 13y ago
Obama: "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is observed" There seems to be a lot of double speak about THE LAW as being something universal. This seems to me to be mostly propaganda directed at Americans since foreign governments certainly understand the nuances of treaties, etc. I don't want to be too critical but it seems like the USA being one of the few countries to not accept the world court is ironic.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I actually came here to comment on the same quote. It's quite sad, really, that my country has, with the revelations of a single person (and of course their response), completely lost all credibility to make statements regarding "the rule of law"...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? We could very well have a case come down in the future that pulls a Roe v. Wade on electronic privacy and reads a broad protection of communications privacy into the Constitution. It would be an act of legislating by judicial fiat, but sometimes that is justified to address gaps in the Constitution. Maybe that would be a good thing. But in the meantime, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that the government's dedication to the rule of law is undermined by a set of programs that seem to be explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law as it exists today.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      > the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law My understanding of this basis is that the government contends that pure storage of data does not constitute a search (not that I accept this line of reasoning). However, in a legal system that takes intellectual property very seriously, in what sense does it not constitute a seizure?
      - DanBC 13y ago
        For content data that's held temporarily it counts as caching, and there are probably exemptions in law for Government secret spy agencies. For meta-content that's held forever - I guess they say it's not private and thus they can keep it forever. The UK is going through some kerfuffle around meta-data to allow it to be gathered and kept. See, for example, the exemption in the UK version of the DMCA for people who are "studying cryptography" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA) I should just link to UK RIPA (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents), especially this bit: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42) but actually all of it. RIPA is interesting. I genuinely don't care about GCHQ caching content for three days and keeping meta data for 30 days. That has no impact on my life. I do care about the abuses that other government departments (usually local government) has carried out using powers under RIPA. Some edits, but I forget to label them! Sorry.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        There are two bases, both of which are pretty uncontroversial: 1) The 4th amendment doesn't extend to non-U.S. persons. The prevailing view of the Constitution is that its scope is territorial. You have to have some connection to the U.S. to have rights and obligations under the Constitution. That means either living here, even if you're not a citizen, or being a citizen, even if you're living abroad. A lot of the NSA's procedures are concerned with making sure that it's data collection is limited to that likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." 2) The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information and can no longer claim that it's private in the same way the contents of your desk drawer are private. It is already established that bank records and telephone numbers you've dialed are not protected by the 4th amendment for this reason (https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy). I'm not sure the degree to which it has been established that the NSA is doing anything that requires treating pure data storage as not a search, but in any case why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws? The intent and purposes of the two regimes are totally different. Also, you have to be careful about whose data is being stored, because Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons).
- laureny 13y ago
  > "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is observed" This seems to be the exact correct thing to say, though. Would you have preferred << we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of AMERICAN law is observed" >> ?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Given that they seemed initially to be demanding HK circumvent their own laws to turn Snowden over quickly "if they respect the rule of law," the latter might be more accurate. I'd really rather they be saying the former and walking the walk.
coke_man 13y ago
And everytime, they tried to put on pressure or to justify their demands, by urging to "please uphold the law", an intense round of laughter filled the room...
Ixiaus 13y ago
His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech. This kind of logic baffles me.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  The Obama administration has cordial relations with some countries that aren't very big supporters of civil rights, such as Saudi Arabia. For that matter, I haven't heard very much criticism of China or Russia coming from the Obama administration either.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    This is a great point, actually. The Saudis are not very kind of their own people either, and if anything their Internet controls are just as strict (from what I've heard).
- camus 13y ago
  nope,that's the "we are better than everybody" complex.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Is he wrong though? He fled to a country that has a "Great Firewall" and Internet censors and then to a country where journalists are routinely killed for opposing Putin. Isn't Pussy Riot still in prison? Most people are not hypocritical about principles they care deeply about, so it's fair to ask whether Internet freedom is itself the principle Snowden is concerned about (in which case, why allow for hypocrisy), or whether it's something else entirely. After all one thing people pretty much can't say about RMS is that the man doesn't stand behind his principles. (edited to fix verb tense) Now I'm even starting to be confused about what precisely Snowden's motives are. On some topics he talks about how people in general have rights, then he starts talking about how he's worried about America and Americans specifically as if he's a patriot that doesn't care as much about the rest of the world. He talks about violating 4th Amendment rights and needing warrants and then says that you can't get a fair trial in America.
memdrum 13y ago
So, under Mr. Carney's logic, if you, e.g., travel to Ecuador on vacation, you cannot also claim to be a proponent of transparency, freedom of the press and democracy? Why does the White House even care what Mr. Snowden's principles are? Does it even matter for the crimes alleged? Is the 18 USC 641 charge for theft of the three laptops he had with him? Does he own those laptops? 793(d) requires that he had lawful access to the docs he leaked. Was he authorized to view the ones he copied? If he was authorized, and those laptops were his personal property, then is this some sort of alternative charge to 641? 798(a)(3) requires that the leak be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the US or for the benefit of a foreign nation to the US's detriment. One wonders if this leak's benefits (exposing massive government search and seizure without probable cause) could outweigh its costs (what exactly are these costs?).
corin_ 13y ago
How would is life play-out if he went back to the US, and how will it play out if he gets asylum somewhere like Ecuador? In the former would he die in prison, or would he some day be released, be it in a few years or many years? What precedents are there that span the long-term (i.e. more than Manning)? And if he gets asylum... in a year can he just live a quiet life, in a foreign country? Or will he constantly be looking over his shoulder, unable to ever return home, regretting his decision not to face the US legal system?

39 points by titlex 13y ago

Obama: "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is observed" There seems to be a lot of double speak about THE LAW as being something universal. This seems to me to be mostly propaganda directed at Americans since foreign governments certainly understand the nuances of treaties, etc. I don't want to be too critical but it seems like the USA being one of the few countries to not accept the world court is ironic.

pvnick 13y ago
I actually came here to comment on the same quote. It's quite sad, really, that my country has, with the revelations of a single person (and of course their response), completely lost all credibility to make statements regarding "the rule of law"...
- rayiner 13y ago
  All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? We could very well have a case come down in the future that pulls a Roe v. Wade on electronic privacy and reads a broad protection of communications privacy into the Constitution. It would be an act of legislating by judicial fiat, but sometimes that is justified to address gaps in the Constitution. Maybe that would be a good thing. But in the meantime, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that the government's dedication to the rule of law is undermined by a set of programs that seem to be explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law as it exists today.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    > the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law My understanding of this basis is that the government contends that pure storage of data does not constitute a search (not that I accept this line of reasoning). However, in a legal system that takes intellectual property very seriously, in what sense does it not constitute a seizure?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      For content data that's held temporarily it counts as caching, and there are probably exemptions in law for Government secret spy agencies. For meta-content that's held forever - I guess they say it's not private and thus they can keep it forever. The UK is going through some kerfuffle around meta-data to allow it to be gathered and kept. See, for example, the exemption in the UK version of the DMCA for people who are "studying cryptography" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA) I should just link to UK RIPA (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents), especially this bit: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42) but actually all of it. RIPA is interesting. I genuinely don't care about GCHQ caching content for three days and keeping meta data for 30 days. That has no impact on my life. I do care about the abuses that other government departments (usually local government) has carried out using powers under RIPA. Some edits, but I forget to label them! Sorry.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      There are two bases, both of which are pretty uncontroversial: 1) The 4th amendment doesn't extend to non-U.S. persons. The prevailing view of the Constitution is that its scope is territorial. You have to have some connection to the U.S. to have rights and obligations under the Constitution. That means either living here, even if you're not a citizen, or being a citizen, even if you're living abroad. A lot of the NSA's procedures are concerned with making sure that it's data collection is limited to that likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." 2) The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information and can no longer claim that it's private in the same way the contents of your desk drawer are private. It is already established that bank records and telephone numbers you've dialed are not protected by the 4th amendment for this reason (https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy). I'm not sure the degree to which it has been established that the NSA is doing anything that requires treating pure data storage as not a search, but in any case why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws? The intent and purposes of the two regimes are totally different. Also, you have to be careful about whose data is being stored, because Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons).
laureny 13y ago
> "What we know is that we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of law is observed" This seems to be the exact correct thing to say, though. Would you have preferred << we're following all the appropriate legal channels and working with various other countries to make sure the rule of AMERICAN law is observed" >> ?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Given that they seemed initially to be demanding HK circumvent their own laws to turn Snowden over quickly "if they respect the rule of law," the latter might be more accurate. I'd really rather they be saying the former and walking the walk.

coke_man 13y ago

And everytime, they tried to put on pressure or to justify their demands, by urging to "please uphold the law", an intense round of laughter filled the room...

Ixiaus 13y ago

His failures to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States, not to advance Internet freedom and free speech. This kind of logic baffles me.

greenyoda 13y ago
The Obama administration has cordial relations with some countries that aren't very big supporters of civil rights, such as Saudi Arabia. For that matter, I haven't heard very much criticism of China or Russia coming from the Obama administration either.
- mpyne 13y ago
  This is a great point, actually. The Saudis are not very kind of their own people either, and if anything their Internet controls are just as strict (from what I've heard).
camus 13y ago
nope,that's the "we are better than everybody" complex.
mpyne 13y ago
Is he wrong though? He fled to a country that has a "Great Firewall" and Internet censors and then to a country where journalists are routinely killed for opposing Putin. Isn't Pussy Riot still in prison? Most people are not hypocritical about principles they care deeply about, so it's fair to ask whether Internet freedom is itself the principle Snowden is concerned about (in which case, why allow for hypocrisy), or whether it's something else entirely. After all one thing people pretty much can't say about RMS is that the man doesn't stand behind his principles. (edited to fix verb tense) Now I'm even starting to be confused about what precisely Snowden's motives are. On some topics he talks about how people in general have rights, then he starts talking about how he's worried about America and Americans specifically as if he's a patriot that doesn't care as much about the rest of the world. He talks about violating 4th Amendment rights and needing warrants and then says that you can't get a fair trial in America.

memdrum 13y ago

So, under Mr. Carney's logic, if you, e.g., travel to Ecuador on vacation, you cannot also claim to be a proponent of transparency, freedom of the press and democracy? Why does the White House even care what Mr. Snowden's principles are? Does it even matter for the crimes alleged? Is the 18 USC 641 charge for theft of the three laptops he had with him? Does he own those laptops? 793(d) requires that he had lawful access to the docs he leaked. Was he authorized to view the ones he copied? If he was authorized, and those laptops were his personal property, then is this some sort of alternative charge to 641? 798(a)(3) requires that the leak be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the US or for the benefit of a foreign nation to the US's detriment. One wonders if this leak's benefits (exposing massive government search and seizure without probable cause) could outweigh its costs (what exactly are these costs?).

corin_ 13y ago

How would is life play-out if he went back to the US, and how will it play out if he gets asylum somewhere like Ecuador? In the former would he die in prison, or would he some day be released, be it in a few years or many years? What precedents are there that span the long-term (i.e. more than Manning)? And if he gets asylum... in a year can he just live a quiet life, in a foreign country? Or will he constantly be looking over his shoulder, unable to ever return home, regretting his decision not to face the US legal system?