42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 05:31 am
@revelette2,
I think you have a point that Snowden did not trust the US institutions to do anything with the info, other than report him to the FBI. Otherwise he would have tried that route. He thought his only option was to leak it to the press so that the PEOPLE would know.

IOW it's not about whether I trust someone in Washington to do the right thing. It's about HIS lack of trust in same. Maybe it's a generational thing,
Olivier5
 
  0  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 05:33 am
@RABEL222,
Someone is throwing a tantrum.
One Eyed Mind
 
  2  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 05:34 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier, he who cannot make sense will make noise.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 06:10 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I think you have a point that Snowden did not trust the US institutions to do anything with the info, other than report him to the FBI. Otherwise he would have tried that route. He thought his only option was to leak it to the press so that the PEOPLE would know.


Respectfully, Olivier...unless you are Edward Snowden posting under the alias Olivier...you do not know what he would or would not have done...and what he thought. Your first sentence includes the "I think..." but the sentences that follow seem less qualified. If the second sentence had been made part of the first...and the third had started with a qualifier (Apparently...)...I would not have these concerns.

In any case, Snowden's motivation MAY have been something much different from what you are supposing.



0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 06:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I will finish this, Olivier.

If that's so important for you, I can let you finish it anytime... Or do you want to drag it down to the shaking 'n rolling emoticons stage? You know, the part where it becomes real wild here on A2K, and I get to leave, shaking my head in disbelief at the--what were your words again?--the “decent arguments and willingness to take on simplistic thinking” so typical of this place…
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 07:03 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I will finish this, Olivier.

If that's so important for you, I can let you finish it anytime... Or do you want to drag it down to the shaking 'n rolling emoticons stage? You know, the part where it becomes real wild here on A2K, and I get to leave, shaking my head in disbelief at the--what were your words again?--the “decent arguments and willingness to take on simplistic thinking” so typical of this place…



I will finish it...the way I want, Olivier.

By the way, your "mocking" tone is amateurish. My guess is you didn't hold up in those other sites...causing more laughter than anger.


http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/humour-blague/clown-jonglerie/clown.gif
Olivier5
 
  0  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 07:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Here we go...

Aaaaaargh! That chicken just killed me.... I can stand the heat of your puerile arguments, Frank.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 07:53 am
As an aside (because I'm actually reading scripts of phone calls of the period):
- in Berlin alone 486 Stasi officers listened 24/24 in 40 "studios" to phone calls. But even in 1989, in all of the GDR the Stasi could only listen to 4,000 calls at the same time.
That Stasi department MfS-Abteilung 26 was the largest in Berlin. The situation in other regional Stasi headquarters was similar.

The reason for this surveillance (which was in more than 90% illegal to the official GDAR-law) was quite simple: getting "capitalistic terrorists" and their domestic partners.
None was found by phone call surveillance.

Okay, back to Frank vs. Olivier.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 07:56 am
@Olivier5,
Frank may get carried away with emoticon thingies, but oftentimes he has a point. You do not know what Snowden was thinking or what his motivation was.

If he illegally copied documents and then attempted to give them to senators or congressman or some kind of civil rights group, I would hope they would turn in him to the FBI.

However, that is not what I and others (such as that long article from slate I posted)have suggested he should have done. What he should have done, was just simply tell people what he had seen and witness with his eyes if he found so much abuses going on at NSA.

He didn't have to break the law by copying the documents, giving it to unauthorized persons who have those documents to do with what they want anywhere in the world, or worse, someone else being able to copy them. After all it was done once, despite all the precautions being taken to safeguard it, someone if they want will be able to figure it out sooner or later.

But I know, all these things are not as bad as information contained therein... so what if national US security and military secrets are copied too, as long as you guy know that the US spies on you that is all that matters. (as though you didn't know that before, Snowden just validated it and filled in the details) The rest is just scaremongering.

revelette2
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 08:00 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I am pretty sure congress is passing laws where some of this data collecting and stuff is going to change in any event. At least the last I heard they was. Might be sidetracked by ISIS and other issues now. Haven't really kept up.

Congress split over NSA’s domestic spying program, could just let laws expire
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  -1  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 09:27 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
If he illegally copied documents and then attempted to give them to senators or congressman or some kind of civil rights group, I would hope they would turn in him to the FBI.

However, that is not what I and others (such as that long article from slate I posted)have suggested he should have done. What he should have done, was just simply tell people what he had seen and witness with his eyes if he found so much abuses going on at NSA.

He didn't have to break the law by copying the documents, giving it to unauthorized persons who have those documents to do with what they want anywhere in the world, or worse, someone else being able to copy them. After all it was done once, despite all the precautions being taken to safeguard it, someone if they want will be able to figure it out sooner or later.

Talking about the surveillance programs to someone not accredited would have been breaking his oath just the same, I think, and quite probably the slate article approach would have landed him in jail too. This kind of advice has the same worth as the injunctions a guy in his couch shouts at his favorite soccer or NFL team on TV... It's second-guessing by people who, just like you and me, don't have a clue what constraints he was facing.

What happened happened. Let's not cry over spilled milk. The only important thing is what happens next. Throwing Snowden in jail or killing him won't solve your mass surveillance problem.

Quote:
The rest is just scaremongering.

Sorry, what is scaremongering? Didn't get that.
Olivier5
 
  -1  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 09:36 am
@Olivier5,
That should read: I CAN'T stand the heat of...

Sorry for the lapsus.
revelette2
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 09:40 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Talking about the surveillance programs to someone not accredited would have been breaking his oath just the same


At least then he would have had at a chance of a whistleblower status by at least giving it a shot and it wouldn't have been so reckless and irresponsible. Its all those documents which sticks in my craw being in the hands of these people, responsible good people or not.

I should have said, fear mongering. It is what my side is accused of when we talk about the potential danger of those documents being exposed.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 09:44 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
At least then he would have had at a chance of a whistleblower status


I think the whistleblower status is limited federal staff, and does not cover consultants. This legal loophole has not justification that I know of, other than being very convenient since all you got to do to reduce the risk of whistleblowers is hire a lot of consultants...
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:00 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Here we go...

Aaaaaargh! That chicken just killed me.... I can stand the heat of your puerile arguments, Frank.



Like I said...I will finish this thing you started, Olivier.

You are a master of starting things you cannot finish.

And your attempts at humor at pathetic.

Be satisfied that you cause great laughter without those attempts. If you truly are looking to amuse...just be yourself!
Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:02 am
@Olivier5,
There is no whistleblower exception in the Espionage Act.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

As an aside (because I'm actually reading scripts of phone calls of the period):
- in Berlin alone 486 Stasi officers listened 24/24 in 40 "studios" to phone calls. But even in 1989, in all of the GDR the Stasi could only listen to 4,000 calls at the same time.
That Stasi department MfS-Abteilung 26 was the largest in Berlin. The situation in other regional Stasi headquarters was similar.

The reason for this surveillance (which was in more than 90% illegal to the official GDAR-law) was quite simple: getting "capitalistic terrorists" and their domestic partners.
None was found by phone call surveillance.

Okay, back to Frank vs. Olivier.


I think it has been convincingly established that the NSA...has absolutely no intention of listening to all those conversations, Walter.

Even if they wanted to...it is virtually impossible.

What they are looking for are indications and patterns of contacts with known suspects...so that a chance of intercepting something of consequences is more likely.

But the fact that damn near everyone commenting on this issue HAS ALREADY CONCEDED THAT POINT...

...seems to be missing you.

Try harder. Open your mind. You will see it if you let yourself see it.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:07 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

That should read: I CAN'T stand the heat of...

Sorry for the lapsus.


I read it as "can't"...and figured you had just screwed up, Olivier.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:08 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

There is no whistleblower exception in the Espionage Act.


Correct.

And well there should not be.

I dare to suppose there never will be one.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 10:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Even if they wanted to...it is virtually impossible.
That's what the Stasi noticed as well - the phone-hacking departments were there largest units, and they couldn't follow all calls (even with the small number of those in the GDR).


Frank Apisa wrote:
What they are looking for are indications and patterns of contacts with known suspects...so that a chance of intercepting something of consequences is more likely.

Well, that's what the Stasi was looking for as well. (And they were suspecious when hearing some "key words", too)

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 527
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 12:29:30