Snowdon is a dummy

I'm not locked into anything; just providing what's out there in web-land's dictionaries - the definition of words that are universally accepted by most people. Can't help it if you want to use your own definitions; that's your problem!

Differentiate all you want, Frank. Not my problem! In my world, dictionary = word definitions.

BTW, what you deem "obvious" is a misnomer on your part.

Quote:

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

European parliament invites Edward Snowden to testify via video
Not yet clear if NSA whistleblower will accept invitation from European parliament committee investigating surveillance

oralloy wrote:

Taking our vital intelligence secrets and publishing them where our enemies can read them, is wrong, and is injurious to us.

That is correct only so long as the term "vital" has validity. Most people whose nose is somewhere near the ground knew what was happening. In fact would have been quite astonished to discover it wasn't.

Listening in pubs has one advantage over listening in a Utah complex littered with NOZMO KING signs. You get to drink a few pints on double time and maybe catch a lady's eye. And get the next day off. And get more reliable information. And to file an expenses claim once a month. It's much more romantic imo.

The thing is, oralloy, that if you build a better mousetrap it is best to clear the shelves of the old ones before going into production.

The only trouble is that in this case the shelves of traditional intelligence agents, James Bond types, are unlikely to go quietly to be replaced by computer nerds sat at a console in a bunker in front of a keyboard.,

Even Obarmy has admitted he would "have a conversation" with Snowden if he could fix the Obarmycare glitches.

Mass surveillance programmes used by the US and Britain to spy on people in Europe have been condemned in the "strongest possible terms" by the first parliamentary inquiry into the disclosures, which has demanded an end to the vast, systematic and indiscriminate collection of personal data by intelligence agencies.

The inquiry by the European parliament's civil liberties committee says the activities of America's National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, appear to be illegal and that their operations have "profoundly shaken" the trust between countries that considered themselves allies.

The 51-page draft report, obtained by the Guardian, was discussed by the committee on Thursday. Claude Moraes, the rapporteur asked to assess the impact of revelations made by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, also condemns the "chilling" way journalists working on the stories have been intimidated by state authorities.

Quote:

Mass surveillance programmes used by the US and Britain to spy on people in Europe have been condemned in the "strongest possible terms" by the first parliamentary inquiry into the disclosures, which has demanded an end to the vast, systematic and indiscriminate collection of personal data by intelligence agencies.

The inquiry by the European parliament's civil liberties committee says the activities of America's National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, appear to be illegal and that their operations have "profoundly shaken" the trust between countries that considered themselves allies.

The 51-page draft report, obtained by the Guardian, was discussed by the committee on Thursday. Claude Moraes, the rapporteur asked to assess the impact of revelations made by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, also condemns the "chilling" way journalists working on the stories have been intimidated by state authorities.

Full report @ Guardian

My personal feeling is that giving up significant personal freedom will end up one day being seen as a good thing...a reasonable thing.

This is the kind of things that committees (like the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee) come up with.

After an attack, they have committees condemning the fact that more is not being done to protect the innocent.

Quote:

My personal feeling is that giving up significant personal freedom will end up one day being seen as a good thing...a reasonable thing.

Probably, since those disagreeing will all be hanged.

Don't worry, you should be okay, brown-nosing Big Brother as you do...

http://www.hngn.com/articles/21521/20140108/insane-clown-posse-sues-over-fbi-labeling-of-group-fans-as-gang-members.htm


A lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Insane Clown Posse over an FBI report labeling the group and their fans as gang members, according to the Associated Press.

The suit was filed on Wednesday on behalf of Joseph Bruce, or Violent J, and Joseph Utsler, or Shaggy 2 Dope, claiming the gang label has "tarnished reputations and hurt businesses," the AP reported. The lawsuit will include four of their fans as plaintiffs.

The two rappers wore their face paint, a trademark feature of their rap group identity, during a news conference in Detroit and said they want the their fans, referred to as Juggalos, removed from the report, claiming they are more like family than a gang, the AP reported.

"Our merchandise sales are just about cut in half. ... You don't see the stickers in the back windows anymore because everyone's afraid to wave the flag in their car," Bruce said, according to the AP. "They're afraid they're going to get pulled over and harassed."

The FBI report was released in 2011 and labeled Juggalos, fan's of Insane Clown Posse, as a "loosely organized hybrid gang," and added that many Juggalos have been arrested for assaults and vandalism with a "small number" having committed more serious crimes, the AP reported.

The lawsuit states the rap group's description as a gang violates free speech and due process, according to the AP.

"It is a quintessential civil liberties case challenging government abuse," Michael Steinberg, the legal director of ACLU Michigan, told the AP.

According to Bruce, who is 41-years-old, Juggalos have been discriminated against because of the label placed by the FBI and cited cases where children were removed from their parents custody just because they were fans, according to the AP.

"What would it be like if the Department of Justice decided to brand all Deadheads, not just as criminals but as criminal gang members because some of them used or even sold drugs?" Saura Sahu, one of the group's attorneys, said, in regards to the band The Grateful Dead, the AP reported.

One of the fans suing is 28-year-old Scott Gandy from North Carolina who claims to have been discriminated against by the Army because of his Insane Clown Posse tattoos, according to the AP.

Gandy says he was told by a sergeant he needed to get rid of his tattoos before he applied to the Army, but he was denied even after going through the costly and painful procedure, the AP reported.

After the report was published by the FBI, Insane Clown Posse attorney's sued the government in order to obtain the records used in classifying the group and their fans as "gang members," the AP reported. The FBI sent more than 100 pages, consisting mostly of newspaper articles about arrests, and refused to send any other material due to exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act for sensitive material.

You'll never understand the different usage of these two words. In philosophy, they are interchangeable. For people who believe in a god, it'sa FACT. You aren't going to convince them otherwise.

Those two words become s very subject I've in pphilosophy

It has been said that Snowden made off with 1.7 million files
- according to Rep. Mike Rogers most of the documents being related to military operations,
- according to those who saw the documents, the "overwhelming majority” of the documents dealt with the NSA.

While on the one hand there are opinions that "It's not just your privacy that is under attack because of the abuses that Snowden exposed -- it's the foundations of a democratic society." ...
... FBI-director James Comey said, Edward Snowden was not worthy of being called a whistleblower or hero, and that he was baffled by reports granting him the label.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/nasas-data-valdez-thousands-employees-personal-information-compromised
NOVEMBER 29, 2012 | BY RAINEY REITMAN
NASA’s Data Valdez: Thousands of Employees’ Personal Information Compromised in Embarrassing Data Breach
For years, NASA has been collecting information on the intimate lives of their contract employees over the objections of civil liberties groups. Now a major data breach may have compromised the sensitive personal data of thousands of employees. Yesterday, employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge called for a congressional investigation into the data breach resulting from the theft of an employee’s laptop holding unencrypted data about thousands of NASA contract workers collected as a result of invasive background checks. The lesson here is clear: NASA should never have collected deeply intimate data about low-security contract employees when it couldn’t even properly protect the data.

In 2007, NASA instituted invasive background checks for “low risk” employees who did not have access to classified materials. Employees at the California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory—many of them long-term employees—had to submit forms to determine their “suitability” for their positions. The forms included listing three personal references such as “good friends, peers, colleagues, college roommates, etc.” Personal references would then be asked to fill out a form which solicited a range of intimate facts about the applicant’s life, including her drug or alcohol abuse, financial integrity, general behavior, violations of law, and mental or emotional stability. The suitability matrix NASA used to judge employees listed factors such as homosexuality, sodomy, carnal knowledge, incest, bestiality, indecent exposure or proposals, illegitimate children, cohabitation, adultery, mental or emotional issues, minor traffic violations, displaying obscene material, acting drunk, and making obscene phone calls.

EFF criticized these invasive screening procedures, submitting an amicus brief in support of the employees’ right to privacy in a Supreme Court case about the matter. We argued that these new procedures violated the employees’ privacy in two ways:

Associational privacy—Upheld by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Patterson, this is the right of an individual to have privacy in their groups, memberships and political affiliations.
Informational privacy—Resting on the Supreme Court’s decision in Whalen v. Roe, this constitutional right upholds an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the privacy of the employees in this case, and the invasive security procedures have now been in place for a number of years. That means that huge quantities of intimate knowledge about NASA contract employees—potentially including details about sexuality, drug use, financial history and family relationships—are collected and stored in databases. And apparently, NASA didn’t bother to encrypt these databases. This is all the more offensive because, as the ACLU noted in a recent blog post, the government argued that the privacy concerns of such invasive background checks were minimized because it is obligated by the Privacy Act of 1976 to keep private any information that it collected.

If NASA hadn’t been collecting this treasure trove of personal information, it would never have been available to be breached. And when, against the protests of civil liberties groups like EFF, EPIC, and the ACLU, NASA was empowered to collect all of this sensitive information, it should at least have respected its employees’ privacy by appropriately securing the data. We support the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s demand for a congressional hearing on the matter, and hope that NASA will use this opportunity to demonstrate its concern for the privacy of employees by stopping the invasive background checking procedures altogether.

Privacy
Related Cases

are all right but the ones who think this usually blame the wrong people and keep reelecting the same people!