Snowdon is a dummy

@BillRM,

Unfortunately, those encryption experts cannot satisfy the majority of consumers and businesses that believes the NSA's overstepping of its legal and economic grounds will reverse their impressions of the damage still being done.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

There may be self proclaimed experts, however, you are missing the point. Not really surprising. We have heard plenty from outside experts in many different sides, some from civil rights lawyers and some from those you focus on. What we can not hear from to any useful degree in order to contribute to the public debate of national security is from those who work in national security now because of their oaths to secrecy and because everything is classified. The author of the article is saying, the end result may be we end up with legal programs that won't work as good as the one we end up discarding.

What they should do, in my humble opinion for what it's worth, is to just concentrate on what is most efficient both in terms of cost and end result and then hassle it out on trying to make it legal. From what I have been reading, most think dragnet surveillance is not very efficient in either direction and should be discontinued on that basis alone and it would also make a lot of the privacy side happy in the process so a win win situation.

2 Replies

Report about Snowden's Skype interview at the Observer's Festival of Ideas: Edward Snowden: state surveillance in Britain has no limits: Whistleblower and former NSA analyst says UK regulation allows GCHQ snooping to go beyond anything seen in US ... ... ...

0 Replies

@revelette2,

"Self proclaimed experts" is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your conclusion that what SCOTUS does is okay with you is wrong-headed.

They swore to uphold the Constitution. The language of the Constitution is quite clear with many legal opinions by experts.

Your ability to ignore the responsibilities of SCOTUS but your attack on Snowden doesn't make any sense - logically and legally.

The Constitution was established as the legal foundation of this country, and all elected representatives of government swore to uphold it.

That you and some others are unable to see the significance and importance of this instrument is the basis of our disagreement.

ci, I think the "basis of our disagreement" is something quite different from what you are suggesting.

I think the "basis of our disagreement" is that you refuse to accept that only the SCOTUS can determine whether the NSA searches constitute "unreasonable searches" or not.

They HAVE sworn to uphold the Constitution...but if they find that the searches do NOT constitute "unreasonable" searches...then they WILL HAVE UPHELD the Constitution...whether you think it is so or not.

I will wait to see if they declare the searches "unreasonable" or not.

Your inability to acknowledge that the SCOTUS has this responsibility (using your words) does not make any sense...logically or legally.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

They HAVE sworn to uphold the Constitution...but if they find that the searches do NOT constitute "unreasonable" searches...then they WILL HAVE UPHELD the Constitution...whether you think it is so or not.

It's unreasonable if they don't have some suspicion of any crime. And when they do, they need a search warrant.

Except for probable cause by the police.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

There may be self proclaimed experts

LOL most of those experts I am referring to are not self proclaimed but proclaimed by others experts working in the field of computer and network security. Most with advance degrees in fields related to security and encryption.

Quote:

public debate of national security is from those who work in national security

Such as Snowden? My bet is congress could learn one hell of a lot from that gentleman.

Or are your talking about the people who claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or did not have a clue that the USSR was about to break apart before it happen?

1 Reply

Sixty minutes is having an interesting interview with the current FBI director an I love that he support the founding fathers position of not trusting those in power.

Other then his whining about Apple and Google new phones software not allowing anyone other then the users access to the those phones contents I love him or at least his public statements.

The NSA director interview however more then confirm my poor opinions of him.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
They HAVE sworn to uphold the Constitution...but if they find that the searches do NOT constitute "unreasonable" searches...then they WILL HAVE UPHELD the Constitution...whether you think it is so or not.

It's unreasonable if they don't have some suspicion of any crime. And when they do, they need a search warrant.

Except for probable cause by the police.

We are talking law here, ci.

It is "unreasonable" in law IF...and only IF...the SCOTUS rules it unreasonable.

My guess is the SCOTUS may never rule on this, because I am beginning to doubt that anyone will be able to show standing to bring an action in a lower court which can work its way up to the SCOTUS.

I may be wrong. (I wish Joe from Chicago would visit here and make some comments on this issue.)

But unless the SCOTUS rules that the actions are "unreasonable"...they cannot be deemed to be unreasonable because well-intentioned people like you consider it to be unreasonable.

The Constitution places the burden of interpreting laws in the hands of the Judicial Branch.

That simply is the way it is.

That is my point.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Of coarse we're talking about law. It's called the Constitution of the United States.

Cornell University Law School.

Quote:

right of privacy: an overview

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:

The Right of Privacy: Access to Personal Information
The Right of Privacy: Personal Autonomy
The Right of Publicity

In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.

Mass data collection does no such thing. It has not been proven to be effective in identifying terrorists.

From aclu.org.

Quote:

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government - which includes the public schools.

The government must have 'probable cause.' Mass data collection does not fit that edict.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I am talking about people who work right now at NSA and are able see first hand results of their programs and so would be in a much better position to know if a given program is doing it's job for the cost. Snowden snuck and saw stuff he wasn't privy to, but on the whole, only those who work there would really be able to make those kinds of decisions. Unless there was yet another agency created to do just that. I mean in the end, we all have the same goal, it just don't seem like it.

The above is the point the author of the article I linked and posted to earlier. It is one element we are missing in this debate because they can't be forthcoming.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You wrote,

Quote:

Snowden snuck and saw stuff he wasn't privy to, but on the whole, only those who work there would really be able to make those kinds of decisions.

Snowden did work there, and was really able to make his decision based on the illegal activities of the NSA. No outsider would know or care.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Of coarse we're talking about law. It's called the Constitution of the United States.

Cornell University Law School.

Quote:
right of privacy: an overview

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:

The Right of Privacy: Access to Personal Information
The Right of Privacy: Personal Autonomy
The Right of Publicity

In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.

Mass data collection does no such thing. It has not been proven to be effective in identifying terrorists.

From aclu.org.

Quote:
WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government - which includes the public schools.

The government must have 'probable cause.' Mass data collection does not fit that edict.

I do not make these decisions, ci...nor do you...or anyone else in A2K. You do not determine if "probable cause" or "reasonable" is being met.

The power to interpret the Constitution and the laws made under it fall to the Judiciary Branch of government.

Until the courts...particularly the SCOTUS rules...you cannot consider the actions taken by the NSA to be unreasonable.

Now obviously you are not going to concede that...so we are going nowhere.

You are not a constitutional scholar...and I certainly am not going to take your interpretation of what is happening here as THE correct interpretation.

You shouldn't either.

1 Reply

Oh...

...and Snowden is not, in my opinion, a dummy.

He is charged with serious crimes...and I would like to see him get a fair trial on those charges.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I can decide for myself from my readings about what is determined "reasonable" according to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - whether the SCOTUS agrees with me or not. I also know I have no power over SCOTUS, and we are the victims of their shortsightedness, errors and omissions. I agree with Cornell University Law School and the ACLU on this matter.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I can decide for myself from my readings about what is determined "reasonable" according to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - whether the SCOTUS agrees with me or not. I also know I have no power over SCOTUS, and we are the victims of their shortsightedness, errors and omissions. I agree with Cornell University Law School and the ACLU on this matter.

We are discussing the law, ci...not your opinions.

I am interested in your opinions...but they are not the decisive factor that you portraying them to be.

The SCOTUS...is still the SCOTUS.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm discussing the 'law.' It's about the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

This topic is relevant to Snowden's situation.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm discussing the 'law.' It's about the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

This topic is relevant to Snowden's situation.

And "the law" requires that the SCOTUS determine if the actions of the NSA are reasonable or not...not you. The courts determine the meaning of those words, ci...not you.

That is my point.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I understand all that, but that doesn't deny me the right to criticize the SCOTUS. It's called the 'freedom of speech.'

Your 'point' really doesn't have relevance. I never said that SCOTUS' doesn't resolve legal issues that we must live by. That's an entirely different issue.

I can question how they resolve any issue; that's my right as a citizen of this country. That's a right afforded me by the US Constitution.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I understand all that, but that doesn't deny me the right to criticize the SCOTUS. It's called the 'freedom of speech.'

I have never said you do not have the right...or even that you should not do it, ci.

EVER!

But you keep insisting that you opinions about the activities of the NSA...are the definitive assessment.

They aren't. The SCOTUS ultimately will determine if the activities are reasonable or not....not you.

Quote:

Your 'point' really doesn't have relevance. I never said that SCOTUS' doesn't resolve legal issues that we must live by. That's an entirely different issue.

You are asserting that the activities of the NSA are unreasonable...according to the law.

That is what I have been objecting to.

You certainly are entitled to give an opinion...but to assert, as you have been, is simply wrong.

Quote:

I can question how they resolve any issue; that's my right as a citizen of this country. That's a right afforded me by the US Constitution.

I agree with you completely. But is not what you have been doing. Read your earlier statement...and you will see that.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know