4 ms·

If this is a fraudulent letter, then it isn't a leak - it's just fraud. It would be like me stealing some official letterhead and 'leaking' an official pardon

If this is a fraudulent letter, then it isn't a leak - it's just fraud. It would be like me stealing some official letterhead and 'leaking' an official pardon for Timothy McVeigh (as a purely random example, please do not say I am comparing Snowden to the Oklahoma City bomber, and yes I'm aware he is dead). If the letter is real (or was a draft of a soon to be real letter), then it's a bit different.

mpyne 13y ago
How can it be fraudulent when it wasn't signed or stamped? I certainly got the impression from her comments that it was upsetting that the draft/template was leaked ahead of time (without the go-ahead from the government) more than anything else. Was it leaked to the press with the statement that it was official, or did the press come to that conclusion on their own?
- cobrausn 13y ago
  As I said in the last part, if this is just an early leak of a document in the works that will soon be official, it's a bit different than fraud. However, there is surely a difference between releasing templates for official documents during the middle of a tense diplomatic situation and releasing information about a (likely unconstitutional) spying operation that has been going on for years without the knowledge of the public.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    A tense diplomatic situation involves words and press releases, not bombs and lives. Both situations are in the public interest, but it seems weird to prioritize diplomatic secrecy over national security secrecy. Likewise the Supreme Court has ruled just this year that it's OK for law enforcement to take DNA samples merely for being detained. I guess all I can say is that you would all be very surprised about what's technically considered Constitutional surveillance or not, and the kind of surveillance (including very-long-term surveillance) that all levels of government have routinely used without making a formal public press release each and every single time. That doesn't mean that what is in place now is all perfect and good (e.g. FISC itself certainly needs more transparency in its operation) but if you're beating on the Constitution drum I think you'll be let down in the end.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Well, I got the chance to be surprised regarding things like DNA samples. I'm not worried about targeted surveillance as much as I am broad-spectrum storing of everything anybody ever does on the internet for later lookup. If they had it their way, the NSA would have never told anyone about it. Thanks to Snowden, now you can talk about the NSA spying on everyone without making it a joke so you don't sound like a loon.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > Thanks to Snowden, now you can talk about the NSA spying on everyone without making it a joke so you don't sound like a loon. Those of us in the know where making that joke since we read Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg". ;)

mpyne 13y ago

How can it be fraudulent when it wasn't signed or stamped? I certainly got the impression from her comments that it was upsetting that the draft/template was leaked ahead of time (without the go-ahead from the government) more than anything else. Was it leaked to the press with the statement that it was official, or did the press come to that conclusion on their own?

cobrausn 13y ago
As I said in the last part, if this is just an early leak of a document in the works that will soon be official, it's a bit different than fraud. However, there is surely a difference between releasing templates for official documents during the middle of a tense diplomatic situation and releasing information about a (likely unconstitutional) spying operation that has been going on for years without the knowledge of the public.
- mpyne 13y ago
  A tense diplomatic situation involves words and press releases, not bombs and lives. Both situations are in the public interest, but it seems weird to prioritize diplomatic secrecy over national security secrecy. Likewise the Supreme Court has ruled just this year that it's OK for law enforcement to take DNA samples merely for being detained. I guess all I can say is that you would all be very surprised about what's technically considered Constitutional surveillance or not, and the kind of surveillance (including very-long-term surveillance) that all levels of government have routinely used without making a formal public press release each and every single time. That doesn't mean that what is in place now is all perfect and good (e.g. FISC itself certainly needs more transparency in its operation) but if you're beating on the Constitution drum I think you'll be let down in the end.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    Well, I got the chance to be surprised regarding things like DNA samples. I'm not worried about targeted surveillance as much as I am broad-spectrum storing of everything anybody ever does on the internet for later lookup. If they had it their way, the NSA would have never told anyone about it. Thanks to Snowden, now you can talk about the NSA spying on everyone without making it a joke so you don't sound like a loon.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Thanks to Snowden, now you can talk about the NSA spying on everyone without making it a joke so you don't sound like a loon. Those of us in the know where making that joke since we read Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg". ;)