Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Finkus]

Second, It's not really them intercepting per se. It's them keeping a database of info from companies to access later under court-ordered situations. Of course, it could be seen as them spying on everything you do ever, or as them doing what they usually do under the mandate of the courts It's in the middle, of course.

You forget that it's a secret court working under secret interpretations of the law.  Sometimes I have to pinch myself while reading some of this stuff to make sure I didn't accidentally pick up a copy of "The Trial".

Based on everything I've read and heard about government surveillance over the years, I suspect the "court order" is nothing more than a rubber stamp.

The entire thing is outrageous.  I'm actually worried that I'm on government lists because I've been watching videos on how to start a 737 and talking to Iranians on IRC.  This should not happen in a free society.

[Leafsnail]

Hong Kong was actually a very poor choice of location.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22836378

Mr Snowden said he had gone to Hong Kong because of its "strong tradition of free speech".

He seems to have swallowed the libertarian talking point that Hong Kong is a bastion of freedom due to its low tax rates, ignoring the brutal repression of free speech that exists all over China.

Hong Kong does have an extradition treaty with the US, and what's more it has no legal protections for whistleblowers.  The only way they could block a direct extradition attempt would be to basically say "fuck you US", and it seems unlikely China would want to cause that much diplomatic damage just for the sake of a single man (unless maybe he tries to sell them his secrets?).

It's silly because there are actually quite a few good options out there (anywhere without extradition treaties, or a place which legally protects whistleblowers like New Zealand, heck even in the UK he'd have a chance of causing a political storm to force the home secretary to block the extradition), but it's hard to see how he can avoid being extradited from where he chose to go.

The only person I've ever heard of by that name is the leader of the Union of Britain in Kaiserreich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden

Most of them seem to be from the US.

e: So my bet is that he'll be extradited and tried as a whistleblower

[Tarqiup Inua]

As an (unimportant) European I might see things slightly differently as "no surveillance without court order" doesn't apply to me and neither it does to most of the world but suppose that's normal - China would do that, too, undoubtedly, as would pretty much any country in the world with the means. I was under impression, though, that the spying could be done without anyone knowing (including court, at least according to the source) even when it comes to US citizens.

It seems to me that such surveillance machinery is a bad thing - it seems easy to abuse, it seems to have little utility regarding it's supposed original purpose which means it eats money that, I believe, could be better spent elsewhere causing much greater good. It's great someone has put an immense work into making such apparatus that, from certain perspective, may seem ingenious, but is it really fulfilling its purpose? Do we need it? Can one justify countermeasures that make more harm than the thing they are suposed to prevent? (at least outside of Dwarf Fortress; and do they more harm?)

When I spoke of human nature, I meant that the structures humans create are very closely tied to it, but yes, I might as well give you credit for pointing out I was being too vague. :-)

[GlyphGryph]

IF Hong Kong extradites him though, I think there would be political fallout.

And it sounds like he's already given everything to the Guardian and it is up to them when to release.

Maybe avoiding capture isn't part of his plan - maybe he's playing a longer game than that. Yes, he could have gone to a place that definitely (maybe) wouldn't have extradited him. But if his goal is to blow this wide open and put a stop to it, is that the best way to accomplish that? Maybe the best way to accomplish that is to turn is his acquisition into a show, something that pisses someone off no matter which way the authorities roll, so they keep looking and keep paying attention. The timing of the releases by the Guardian, sort of refuting each level of attempted cover, leads me to believe that may in fact be the game plan.

[palsch]

It's near place he has been assigned, it's not the West like Sweden so the risk of extradiction is lower than there ...

Depends on what he is charged with, but if it's espionage then the odds are actually higher.

Espionage is commonly regarded as a political crime and so not usually a valid reason for extradition. This is obvious if you think about it. Most countries have intelligence agencies whose job involves breaking the law in other countries. If an extradition treaty forced you to hand over your own spies... yeah. The same goes (at least in the west) for military crimes such as desertion. Even if you have similar crimes on the books you rarely recognise them as symmetrical cases, and that's a requirement for extradition in nearly all countries, outside extraordinary treaties.

Thing is, I'm not aware of any case similar to this being tested in China, so how something like this would shake out is entirely unclear to me and I haven't seen any analysis I trust yet. I am aware of one such case in Sweden. In 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a CIA agent who defected to the Soviet Union in 1985, releasing him from custody despite a US extradition appeal. Currently Marta Rita Velazquez, accused of spying on the US for Cuba is living in Sweden for this very reason. The US hasn't even bothered filing an extradition request - despite indicting her nine years ago - because espionage isn't something Sweden would even consider.

It is worth noting that in the Howard case he was forced to leave Sweden - voluntarily and on his own terms - on immigration grounds. He was allowed to travel to Russia on the grounds of past residence and the government being willing to take him. IMO the most likely scenario here is something similar - probably a visa being - but his being forced to return to the USA rather than allowed to go elsewhere. That or the US charges him with a different crime, although I'm not sure there is anything obvious here.

[Loud Whispers]

One of the most bizarre shills has been one saying that the problem is that this was leaked, not that this exists, and that Snowden is a traitor to the state.

[Sir Finkus]

Sweden probably isn't a great choice either.

[Scoops Novel]

He said he doesn't want the focus to be on him, it should be on the case (though if one leads to the other, i could see it). Personally, I'm struggling right now with the concept of Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I'm surprised that the Guardian and Snowdon were able to pull this off, but I'm just convinced enough at the failings of such a bureaucracy that it could happen. That article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/09/edward_snowden_why_did_the_nsa_whistleblower_have_access_to_prism_and_other.html, posted by sir finkus, it wont let me quote him) makes a bloody good point that can't be ignored.

[palsch]

Personally, I'm struggling right now with the concept of Occam's razor.

"Plurality should not be posited without necessity"?

"Don't attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence".

Hanlon's razor?

That article makes a bloody good point that can't be ignored.

Which article?

[Scoops Novel]

Thank you, i understand Hanlon's razor is the derivative i had in mind but couldn't remember the name. This article, on what it means if such as Snowdon or Manning could manage this.

Actually, this article makes a pretty decent point.  I now suspect an "accident" will happen.

[kaijyuu]

That article really isn't a very good attack on his character. In the real world, how well you did in school isn't all that indicative of how well you do your job.

The guy got his job apparently fair and square. I see no nepotism there, which actually WOULD be indicative of incompetence.


(unless you're talking specifically about how someone so low ranking could have so much access, in which case, let me remind you that people are incompetent in general. If we hear about a conspiracy, someone wasn't doing their job in it correctly. Since of course, conspiracies are supposed to remain secret)

[Scoops Novel]

Yep, I'm talking about a low-ranking person with a system that "could be taken down in half an hour".

[palsch]

I honestly don't believe he did have access to it. That part of his story is really unbelievable. Absolutely everything else released about PRISM - including the classified slides - suggest it's just a tool used to streamline the FISA process. His claims suggest it is a program that completely ignores the FISA process. Not only would this require massive collusion of all three branches of government, it would then have to be made open to civilian contractors with fairly minimal clearance. That requires both the NSA to be running a perfectly secret (for nearly six years) yet grossly illegal program far in excess of the rather broad laws they had fought to get passed while simultaneously waving it's existence all over the place and including experience with it in job listings. Just doesn't pass the smell test.

This article goes more into the inconsistencies and notes how far the WaPo has backpedaled from it's original claims.

[Scoops Novel]

Given what we know Google and Facebook already do with our data, i don't believe they weren't involved in such a program for an instant. What do you think about the comments of other's that a lack of directness of access is more of a technical matter then a practical one? Also, i thought the Guardian was the source of the leak? They're not giving an inch. Another point to consider is the manpower involved. I'm far from certain they'd have the luxury of choosing more skilled/trusted agents. Lastly, everyone and their mother thought this was going on, this is the evidence. It's notable in both the government and public response.

[palsch]

Given what we know Google and Facebook already do with our data, i don't believe they weren't involved in such a program for an instant.

The FAA offers immunity to them for sharing private data only under very narrow circumstances. If they were doing what has been claimed in the interviews and original articles then they would have massive legal liabilities. Every time they gave access to their servers not in accordance with a direct FISC order would be an opportunity for them to be sued into the ground.

And remember, Twitter are known to have not cooperated (which I assume means formatted their FISA submitted data to be compatible with PRISM - they would still have to respond to FISC orders) so it's not like they couldn't have just said no if it had exposed them to any liability.

What do you think about the comments of other's that a lack of directness of access is more of a technical matter then a practical one?

It has to do with what the program is. The interviews and original articles made it out to be one thing. The actual documents and every other source suggest it's something else. The idea that PRISM gives the government instant and live access to all your information, with the universal permission of google, facebook, et al. looks to be flat out wrong (again, see the above CNet article). It's also overshadowing the far more interesting leaks about the NSA phone record claims, which actually reveal something about the extent of the FISA claims being made by the government with regard to big data.

Also, i thought the Guardian was the source of the leak? They're not giving an inch.

The team behind the Guardian story are never going to back down even if Snowden himself retracts his statements and claims the documents are fakes. I don't think Greenwald has backed off a single anti-government claim in his life, and I've been reading articles by him for a good eight years now.