4 ms·

"If Snowden simply stuck to the NSA's overreach in domestic spying" On behalf of the other 6.7 billion people on this spinning green ball, thankfully he didn't

"If Snowden simply stuck to the NSA's overreach in domestic spying" On behalf of the other 6.7 billion people on this spinning green ball, thankfully he didn't. We have rights too.

slg 12y ago
>We have rights too. Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA. That has been one of the main features of government throughout history. They put their own people's rights above the rights of foreigners. EDIT: And doing the opposite will generally be viewed as treason. I am honestly not aware of anything that was revealed that would violate any international treaty the US agreed to, but will definitely listen if you have examples. I also have a hard time believing that any other country with the capability to do the type of international spying the US does wouldn't do the exact same thing (or isn't already).
- pfortuny 12y ago
  We may not have US constitutional rights but that is not the same as not having any rights at all. The USC establishes the USA not humanity.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    Also, EU citizens have rights/protection under the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv...
- danieldk 12y ago
  I am honestly not aware of anything that was revealed that would violate any international treaty the US agreed to, but will definitely listen if you have examples. If something is not restricted by international treaties, it does not mean it's ethically ok to do so. I can understand that the US would push the boundaries when it comes to enemies. But it is utterly painful what it has done to so-called allies. Europe has a lot of historical debt to Canada and the US. However, 'betrayal' is the word that comes up describing what many Europeans feel.
  - slg 12y ago
    >If something is not restricted by international treaties, it does not mean it's ethically ok to do so This is where I think we get into problems. You seem to be suggesting that people should be allowed to reveal classified national secrets that are legal both nationally and internationally if they find them unethical. I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Different people will have wildly different views on what is ethical when it comes to war and espionage. That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties.
    - danieldk 12y ago
      You seem to be suggesting that people should be allowed to reveal classified national secrets that are legal both nationally and internationally if they find them unethical. [...] Different people will have wildly different views on what is ethical when it comes to war and espionage. Definitely. That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties. But treaties (as we have seen in this case) often lag significantly. In the end it is the judgement and the responsibility of the leaker. In this case, I think Snowden made a good call. For many reasons: e.g. the world had the right to know that virtually all internet traffic is tapped or tappable and that cryptography was intentionally weakened. Even if the US is your friend, that makes you vulnerable to criminal organizations and states that are not allies.
- trhway 12y ago
  >>We have rights too. >Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA. US is a signatory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
  - slg 12y ago
    >The Helsinki Accords, however, were not binding as they did not have treaty status. That is at the end of the first paragraph, so I am not sure what you are getting at with your post. Even ignoring that, I didn't find anything that jumped out in that short Wikipedia article. Can you expand on how you believe the US violated the Helsinki Accords?
    - trhway 12y ago
      >Can you expand on how you believe the US violated the Helsinki Accords? 1. a cornerstone of Helsinki is "fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief" 2. it is well established legal principle, incl. in US legal system, that mass surveillance violates such fundamental freedoms (by means of chilling effect in particular) >>The Helsinki Accords, however, were not binding as they did not have treaty status. There is also a binding treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rig... and "U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant" http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
- mpweiher 12y ago
  Article 1 of the German Constitution ("Basic Law"): "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt." Not "German". "Human".
- MCRed 12y ago
  The enumerated powers clause does not authorize the NSA, so effectively, everything they do is unconstitutional.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The enumerated powers clause does not authorize the NSA, The NSA is a foreign signals intelligence service principally, though not exclusively, supporting the military. I don't really see any argument that the existence of the NSA -- however much the case may be made of particular activities of the NSA violating various provisions of the Constitution -- is any less within the purview of Art. I Sec. 8 enumerated powers (particularly, the power to "raise and support armies") than any other non-uniformed part of the military support structure in the US government.
karmacondon 12y ago
So you feel that your rights include knowing which military bases intelligence information flows through? I can understand people being outraged at the idea of NSA spying and wanting specific programs to end immediately. Whether certain intelligence operations violate your Constitutional or philosophical rights to privacy is an issue that's important to democracy and should be debated vociferously. But there is no legal or moral right that entitles you to know what air force base controls our drone fleet, what the nuclear launch codes are or where our achilles heels are located. Dumping troves of sensitive data is a bad idea, even if you want the NSA to be completely abolished. Snowden could have just as easily made a speech, instead of handing millions of unread classified documents over to private individuals.
- patrickg_zill 12y ago
  May I ask, do you believe, that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, etc. don't already know all this, already?

"If Snowden simply stuck to the NSA's overreach in domestic spying" On behalf of the other 6.7 billion people on this spinning green ball, thankfully he didn't. We have rights too.

slg 12y ago

>We have rights too. Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA. That has been one of the main features of government throughout history. They put their own people's rights above the rights of foreigners. EDIT: And doing the opposite will generally be viewed as treason. I am honestly not aware of anything that was revealed that would violate any international treaty the US agreed to, but will definitely listen if you have examples. I also have a hard time believing that any other country with the capability to do the type of international spying the US does wouldn't do the exact same thing (or isn't already).

pfortuny 12y ago
We may not have US constitutional rights but that is not the same as not having any rights at all. The USC establishes the USA not humanity.
- danieldk 12y ago
  Also, EU citizens have rights/protection under the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv...
danieldk 12y ago
I am honestly not aware of anything that was revealed that would violate any international treaty the US agreed to, but will definitely listen if you have examples. If something is not restricted by international treaties, it does not mean it's ethically ok to do so. I can understand that the US would push the boundaries when it comes to enemies. But it is utterly painful what it has done to so-called allies. Europe has a lot of historical debt to Canada and the US. However, 'betrayal' is the word that comes up describing what many Europeans feel.
- slg 12y ago
  >If something is not restricted by international treaties, it does not mean it's ethically ok to do so This is where I think we get into problems. You seem to be suggesting that people should be allowed to reveal classified national secrets that are legal both nationally and internationally if they find them unethical. I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Different people will have wildly different views on what is ethical when it comes to war and espionage. That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    You seem to be suggesting that people should be allowed to reveal classified national secrets that are legal both nationally and internationally if they find them unethical. [...] Different people will have wildly different views on what is ethical when it comes to war and espionage. Definitely. That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties. But treaties (as we have seen in this case) often lag significantly. In the end it is the judgement and the responsibility of the leaker. In this case, I think Snowden made a good call. For many reasons: e.g. the world had the right to know that virtually all internet traffic is tapped or tappable and that cryptography was intentionally weakened. Even if the US is your friend, that makes you vulnerable to criminal organizations and states that are not allies.
trhway 12y ago
>>We have rights too. >Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA. US is a signatory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
- slg 12y ago
  >The Helsinki Accords, however, were not binding as they did not have treaty status. That is at the end of the first paragraph, so I am not sure what you are getting at with your post. Even ignoring that, I didn't find anything that jumped out in that short Wikipedia article. Can you expand on how you believe the US violated the Helsinki Accords?
  - trhway 12y ago
    >Can you expand on how you believe the US violated the Helsinki Accords? 1. a cornerstone of Helsinki is "fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief" 2. it is well established legal principle, incl. in US legal system, that mass surveillance violates such fundamental freedoms (by means of chilling effect in particular) >>The Helsinki Accords, however, were not binding as they did not have treaty status. There is also a binding treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rig... and "U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant" http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html
mpweiher 12y ago
Article 1 of the German Constitution ("Basic Law"): "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt." Not "German". "Human".
MCRed 12y ago
The enumerated powers clause does not authorize the NSA, so effectively, everything they do is unconstitutional.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The enumerated powers clause does not authorize the NSA, The NSA is a foreign signals intelligence service principally, though not exclusively, supporting the military. I don't really see any argument that the existence of the NSA -- however much the case may be made of particular activities of the NSA violating various provisions of the Constitution -- is any less within the purview of Art. I Sec. 8 enumerated powers (particularly, the power to "raise and support armies") than any other non-uniformed part of the military support structure in the US government.

karmacondon 12y ago

So you feel that your rights include knowing which military bases intelligence information flows through? I can understand people being outraged at the idea of NSA spying and wanting specific programs to end immediately. Whether certain intelligence operations violate your Constitutional or philosophical rights to privacy is an issue that's important to democracy and should be debated vociferously. But there is no legal or moral right that entitles you to know what air force base controls our drone fleet, what the nuclear launch codes are or where our achilles heels are located. Dumping troves of sensitive data is a bad idea, even if you want the NSA to be completely abolished. Snowden could have just as easily made a speech, instead of handing millions of unread classified documents over to private individuals.

patrickg_zill 12y ago
May I ask, do you believe, that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, etc. don't already know all this, already?