Snowdon is a dummy

What Snowden did was good for humanity.

That is one of the reasons I hope he gets a fair trial to clear his name.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What Snowden did was good for humanity.

That is one of the reasons I hope he gets a fair trial to clear his name.

Well, so you certainly hope that those who spied e.g. on German, Austrian, French persons, firms, institutions will get a fair trial as well.

But the only reason, why there could be a trial, is that there are laws ... about and against espionage, not against and about skiing.

[...]
In an interview first broadcast by Radio Bremen on Tuesday evening, Merkel said Germany was "in consultation" with the US over the alleged disclosure of German secrets to the US.
"Only after that can we make the decisions," Merkel said. Until then, the German parliament's NSA investigative committee would be provided with "many other documents."
"We have a need for clarification," the chancellor said of German intelligence service scandal.
[...]
"Spying between friends is unacceptable," Merkel said in October 2013, when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the US had bugged her phone.
In Tuesday's interview, however, Merkel said her words represented an "ambitious goal."
[...]

[...]
Within the past two weeks, the tide has turned. Ms. Merkel is back in the spotlight over spying. This time it is Germany’s foreign intelligence service, known here as the B.N.D., that is being accused of monitoring European companies and perhaps individuals. Further, the reports said the spying was done at the behest of the National Security Agency, the United States intelligence organization.
[...]
Government officials are also scrambling to head off accusations by some German news outlets and opposition figures that Ms. Merkel’s government and some of her allies failed their constitutional duty to supervise the intelligence services and inform Parliament of the services’ activities.
[...]
The details of what the German government did or did not do in collusion with the American government remain murky, caught up in the secrecy inherent in security matters. But the federal prosecutor is examining whether to begin a formal investigation.

The regular parliamentary committee that oversees all intelligence services and a special parliamentary inquiry into the National Security Agency are also seeking more details and questioning key officials.
[...]
The matter raises anew the questions that flared in 2013 with the release of American government documents by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealing the extent of American spying operations domestically and abroad. In the United States, Congress is now poised to reel in some of the surveillance measures that were adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But Germans reacted with revulsion when the extent of American spying on Europeans was revealed. Germany’s memory of the Nazi and Communist regimes that spied on their citizens gave the revelations a special edge. Mr. Snowden is more of a popular hero here than elsewhere in Europe, and anti-N.S.A. sentiment remains high.
[...]
Ms. Merkel, asked on Monday whether her maxim about spying among friends still applied, said this was an “important” question and added, “I think the answer should be that it should not occur.”

But she recalled that she had noted in 2013 that it was necessary to strike a balance between liberty and security, and that this “will continue to be my job.”

“There is an innate tension,” she added. “We must improve what needs to be improved through reports to the parliamentary control bodies. But on the other hand, even if it is not so popular right now, it is part of their job for our intelligence services, especially the B.N.D., that they must and will cooperate internationally to protect the bodies and lives of 80 million Germans as best they can.”

“First and foremost,” she said, that means cooperation with the National Security Agency.

In 2013, Ms. Merkel — facing re-election, which she handily won for a third term — succeeded in tamping down what is known here as the N.S.A. scandal.

But it never went away. Since starting work last year, the special parliamentary inquiry into the N.S.A. affair has summoned witnesses, including former United States intelligence officials, who painted what many Germans see as a damning picture of American surveillance practices.
[...]
The statement [by the German government] said there was no sign of current or past “massive spying on German and European citizens.” But it omitted any mention of businesses or individuals, and whether they had been targeted.
[...]

All the indignation and protestations over spying...is theater for people naive enough to buy into it.[/b]

Frank Apisa wrote:

All the indignation and protestations over spying...is theater for people naive enough to buy into it.[/b]

So, if we are not naïve, spying should be exempt from punishment.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Finally...I see all this as being for the good of humanity...not as a negative as so many of you do. I think this is a part of the growing factor for homo sapiens...and hope it will be the factor that allows us to continue our evolution.

At least, here I can partly agree: what Snowden did was good for humanity.

We can agree completely.
What Snowden did was good for humanity.
That is one of the reasons I hope he gets a fair trial to clear his name.
He can try to use that defense.
Might work...might not.
That is the way fair trials work.

Supposing the laws are going to stop spying...is like supposing laws can be passed against earthquakes, hurricanes and avalanches which will stop them

Le loi relatif au renseignement ...

Planned measures would probably not have stopped an attack like the one at Charlie Hebdo, experts say, but will put France in the company of nations like Russia
[...]
“The law would not have added anything,” said Pierre-Olivier Sur, the head of the Paris bar association, who opposes the new measures, which will allow the intelligence services to collect and monitor bulk cybercommunications, read texts and email and tap cellphones as well as place recording devices in people’s homes and cars, with little judicial oversight.

Yet the French push to vastly expand domestic spying in reaction to the attack is hardly a unique response.

Many governments and societies, not least in the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, have gone through similar seismic shifts, rebalancing civil liberties and security in the wake of terrorist attacks.

What was most striking in France, however, was the near absence of attention and debate around the measures — the bill passed the National Assembly by a vote of 438 to 86, and the news barely made the front pages of newspapers here on Wednesday.

Perhaps that is not all that unusual. Citizens in nations that have been attacked tend to look for reassurance that they will not be the next victims, and politicians tend to believe that there is little to be gained — and potentially a lot to be lost — if they fail to emphasize that they are doing everything possible to keep their citizens safe.
... ... ...

Germany’s secret service has greatly restricted its cooperation with the US National Security Agency following a row about their alleged joint spying on European officials and companies, reports say.

The foreign intelligence agency BND stopped sharing internet surveillance data with the NSA, passing on only fax and phone intercepts, according to German media on Thursday.

Berlin now demands that the NSA provide a justification for each online surveillance request, reported the Süddeutsche Zeitung, public broadcasters NDR and WDR, and the news agency DPA.

The NSA had been unable to meet the new request at short notice, the reports added. However, such a rule had long been in place for fax and phone surveillance conducted by the BND for the NSA.

“This is definitely a dramatic step,” said Konstantin von Notz, a Green party MP who serves on a parliamentary panel investigating the NSA’s surveillance activities.

“I think they’ve pulled the emergency brake because, even in 2015, they still can’t control the search terms for internet traffic,” he said, adding that
Angela Merkel’s government was unable “to protect German and European interests”.

Federal appeals court says NSA program that collected millions of Americans’ phone calls was not authorized by Congress

The US court of appeals has ruled that the bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful, in a landmark decision that clears that way for a full legal challenge against the National Security Agency.

A panel of three federal judges for the second circuit overturned an earlier ruling that the controversial surveillance practice first revealed to the US public by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 could not be subject to judicial review.

But the judges also waded into the charged and ongoing debate over the reauthorization of a key Patriot Act provision currently before US legislators. That provision, which the appeals court ruled the NSA program surpassed, will expire on June 1 amidst gridlock in Washington on what to do about it.

The judges opted not to end the domestic bulk collection while Congress decides its fate, calling judicial inaction “a lesser intrusion” on privacy than at the time the case was initially argued.

“In light of the asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape,” the judges ruled.

But they also sent a tacit warning to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who is pushing to re-authorize the provision, known as Section 215, without modification: “There will be time then to address appellants’ constitutional issues.”

“We hold that the text of section 215 cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program,” concluded their judgement.

“Such a monumental shift in our approach to combating terrorism requires a clearer signal from Congress than a recycling of oft‐used language long held in similar contexts to mean something far narrower,” the judges added.

“We conclude that to allow the government to collect phone records only because they may become relevant to a possible authorized investigation in the future fails even the permissive ‘relevance’ test.

“We agree with appellants that the government’s argument is ‘irreconcilable with the statute’s plain text’.”

The ruling, one of several in federal courts since the Guardian exposed the domestic bulk collection thanks to Snowden, immediately took on political freight.

Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”

“We hold that the text of section 215 cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program,” concluded their judgement.

“Such a monumental shift in our approach to combating terrorism requires a clearer signal from Congress than a recycling of oft‐used language long held in similar contexts to mean something far narrower,” the judges added.

“We conclude that to allow the government to collect phone records only because they may become relevant to a possible authorized investigation in the future fails even the permissive ‘relevance’ test.”

“We agree with appellants that the government’s argument is ‘irreconcilable with the statute’s plain text’.”

We'll see what the higher courts have to say.

oralloy wrote:

We'll see what the higher courts have to say.

To what higher courts are you referring here

First there will be the en banc panel of the appeals court.