40
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Nov, 2019 03:38 pm
By the way anyone interest in computer security an keeping out both the governments and others should look into such software as PGP, the tor network, VPN software not base in the Five eyes nations, hard drive encrypting programs such as VeraCrypt .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 11:06 am
Right to Privacy Extends to Foreign Internet Users, German Court Rules
The ruling was announced at the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, Germany, on Tuesday. The decision is the first time that the court has extended constitutional rights to non-Germans.

The ruling comes seven years after the revelations of Edward Snowden, former employee of the US National Security Agency (NSA) - and without him it probably wouldn't have happened.

The intelligence services cannot randomly search the digital data of citizens of other countries living abroad, the judges said, in a decision welcomed by civil rights activists.

Quote:
BERLIN — Privacy rights enshrined in Germany’s Constitution extend to foreigners living abroad and cover their online data, the country’s highest court ruled on Tuesday, ordering Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to overhaul a law governing the foreign intelligence agency.

The decision by the Constitutional Court found that parts of a 2016 law governing the country’s foreign intelligence agency, known by its German abbreviation BND, in part violated the universal right to privacy in communication. The ruling ordered the law to be rewritten to clarify the motivation for spying on individuals abroad, but it stopped short of banning the practice outright.

In its current form, the law permits the BND to gather, evaluate and even share data generated by communication between non-Germans outside the country to counter potential attacks or threats. Passage of the law fueled an intense debate over security and civil liberties in a country where the lessons of disregard for individual privacy under the Nazi and Communist regimes still resonate strongly.

The court found that the pre-emptive measures stipulated in the law were not clear enough grounds for violating an individual’s privacy.

“In particular, the monitoring is not based on sufficient objectives and structured in such a way that they are controllable; there is also a lack of various safeguards, for example to protect journalists or lawyers,” the court said. It added that the law lacked “a guarantee of sufficiently weighty protection of legal interests and sufficient thresholds for intervention.”

A group of journalist and civil liberties organizations brought the case before the Constitutional Court, arguing that the 2016 law handed too much power to the state and failed to uphold universal human rights to privacy guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution. The ruling is the first time that the court has extended rights guaranteed in the Constitution to non-Germans.

“The ruling sets new standards in international human rights protection and for the freedom of the press,” said the Society for Civil Rights, a Berlin-based nonprofit organization that filed the suit along with several journalists’ organizations.

Outrage about surveillance in Germany was prompted by the extensive privacy breaches by intelligence services that were revealed by Edward J. Snowden, a former contractor for the U.S. National Security Agency, and, shortly after, by the disclosure that the N.S.A. had tapped the chancellor’s cellphone.

Around the same time, Ms. Merkel’s government was struggling to respond to a series of Islamist terrorist attacks in the country and seeking to expand Germany’s ability to defend itself without relying on the U.S. security apparatus. The 2016 law was an attempt to balance the considerations of privacy and security, but the court decided on Tuesday that the BND had been afforded too much power.

The ruling demanded that parts of the 2016 law be rewritten by the end of 2021, stipulating that the individual right to privacy in communication, whether by letter, telephone or online, be established as a universal right of any individual, anywhere. The court also called for more controls over the BND and for limitations on the ability of the service to share information with international partners.

Norbert Röttgen, a member of Ms. Merkel’s conservative governing party and a contender to succeed her, criticized the ruling in a post on Twitter as “difficult to explain abroad” because it “raises considerable questions about our strategic operations and ability to cooperate in a time when outside aggression is increasingly complex.”

For civil rights groups, the ruling was an overdue move to bring the country’s intelligence agency in line with its Constitution.

“Today’s verdict finally incorporates the BND into the German Constitution,” said Bijan Moini, a lawyer who represented Reporters Without Borders in the case. “The court sets far-reaching guidelines on how far and deep the service may monitor, how vulnerable groups of people must be protected and independent control must be strengthened.”


The Fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court, Judgment of 19 May 2020, 1 BvR 2835/17, press release:
In their current form, surveillance powers of the Federal Intelligence Service regarding foreign telecommunications violate fundamental rights of the Basic Law


0 Replies
 
spotlight
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2020 09:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Someone didn't get their cattle prod today.
0 Replies
 
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 02:07 am
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone, It is ironic that the American government is doing just what they accuse the Chinese government from doing, completely trashing all pretence of the rights of the individual, in China, he would be dead, in America, he ran for his life---give the guy a break, he is probably homesick!!
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 04:27 am
I'm rather suprised at the people who think it is okay for their own government to break their own laws and collect mass surveillance on their own people without consent.

The sheer breadth of power this gives people who control such information is unfathomable. And if it is okay for them to break the law, then where is the oversight? The answer:
- there is no independent oversight, and the people supporting such use are okay with this.
- consequently there are no checks and balances, and the people supporting such use are okay with this.

Checks and balances are needed in all forms of governmental power. This has been shown time, and time again, from simple processes up to the very powerful decision making positions.

Their niaive belief is that because it hasn't been substantially abused (to their knowledge)...that in the next several centuries such a system will never be truly abused...will never attract to it those drawn to the potential in the abuse of such power (really it can only keep attracting these types of people)... and will never be used as an instrument of domination. The way I see it, it is only a matter of time (whether that is decades or centuries).

People can call a person a traitor, or waffle on about treason...which traditional concept was agains the kings and queens...but if they meant 'against the country', then they would be hard pressed to show how Snowdens revelations didn't overall benefit the citizens of the country (which the government serves), and hard pressed to show how it in any substantial way damaged the country (other than the reputation caused to the government, rather than the people).

This whole argument is about philosphy and values that people hold, including whether or not they believe in integrity and how much they believe in integrity, and whether or not they believe people should follow their conscience or toe the company line. It is about whether or not they believe in tribes or humanity as a whole. It is about how much control they believe governments should have over its people...who they purportedly serve.

There are plenty of people who put their faith in government systems, going 'it hasn't hurt me so far, so it will never hurt me'. I prefer to look at it another way / ask the question of it in another way - "What system will keep me safe in the short term, while also keeps me safe in the long term?" To me, that is where the balance lays. If a short term gain means a long term loss, then the increased risks of not taking the short term gain is not woth the increased likelihood of long term loss. Others may prefer to take the short term route and worry about the long term for another day. When it comes to giving away power, and especially power without oversight, I think it is niaive to give this type of power over ourselves away...while somehow expecting that it will not be held onto and eventually abused.

-----------------------------

I think Snowden showed he was a man of integrity, who wasn't prepared to continue to sacrifice his ethics and morality for the company. The depth of his integrity was shown in the depth of his committment to doing something for others while knowing just how profoundly and negatively it would impact his own life. Do this took bravery. Very few people would have the strength of character to do what he did.

The world would be a much better place with more people like him around.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 04:53 am
@popeye1945,
popeye1945 wrote:
Cicerone, It is ironic that the American government is doing just what they accuse the Chinese government from doing, completely trashing all pretence of the rights of the individual,

How is America doing that?


popeye1945 wrote:
in China, he would be dead, in America, he ran for his life---give the guy a break, he is probably homesick!!

I'm not inclined to give him a break. The CIA should kill him.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 04:56 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I'm rather suprised at the people who think it is okay for their own government to break their own laws

No laws were broken by the US.

Snowden broke a number of laws however.


vikorr wrote:
and collect mass surveillance on their own people without consent.

Consent was given.


vikorr wrote:
People can call a person a traitor, or waffle on about treason...which traditional concept was agains the kings and queens...but if they meant 'against the country', then they would be hard pressed to show how Snowdens revelations didn't benefit the citizens of the country (which the government serves),

The fact that no one has ever been able to list a single benefit from Snowden's treachery is pretty good evidence that there are no such benefits.


vikorr wrote:
and hard pressed to show how it in any substantial way damaged the country (other than the reputation caused to the government, rather than the people).

Not hard pressed at all.

Exposing the methods that we were using to uncover terrorists did enormous damage to our ability to do so, and led to terrorists succeeding in their crimes when we would have otherwise prevented their crimes.


vikorr wrote:
I think Snowden showed he was a man of integrity, who wasn't prepared to continue to sacrifice his ethics and morality for the company.

There is something amiss with ethics and morality that requires helping terrorists slaughter innocent civilians.


vikorr wrote:
The world would be a much better place with more people like him around.

I disagree. But terrorists would probably be a lot happier.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 06:26 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
vikorr wrote:
and collect mass surveillance on their own people without consent.
Consent was given.
Sometimes you really have a peculiar funny black humour.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 06:29 am
@Walter Hinteler,
True. But I was not joking here. I was merely telling the truth.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 06:38 am
@oralloy,
So it was all fake news about the consent- and warrantless wiretapping program? But why was it ended then?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 07:06 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
So it was all fake news about the consent- and warrantless wiretapping program?

I'm not sure that I understand what you are asking. I do not believe that any warrantless wiretapping was aimed at people residing inside the United States.

People inside the US may have been recorded by warrantless surveillance aimed outside the US, if they communicated with an outside group that was being surveilled.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
But why was it ended then?

The programs that were ended, were ended because progressives want terrorists to kill more civilians.
popeye1945
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 07:52 am
@oralloy,
Oralloy, Spoken like a true republican!!!
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 07:54 am
@oralloy,
Your wrong:
a) there was a consent- and warrantless wiretapping program aimed at people residing inside the United States,
b) the program was ended because the AG said, surveillance "now" [in 2007] would be subject to the approval to the FISC.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 01:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
There is something amiss with ethics and morality that requires helping terrorists slaughter innocent civilians.
You frame it this way because of your philosophies and values - which is what I said was at the heart of the argument. This is also a reflection of the rest of your post.

---------------------------
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/trump-whistleblower-edward-snowden_n_5d893bf8e4b0938b5932cde0?ri18n=true
(Reuters) — Seven years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful — and that the U.S. intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth.

In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the warrantless telephone dragnet that secretly collected millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and may well have been unconstitutional.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 05:25 pm
@vikorr,
The court was wrong. The gathering of phone records complied with both the law and the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 05:26 pm
@popeye1945,
popeye1945 wrote:
Oralloy, Spoken like a true republican!!!

Actually I'm a conservative Democrat.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2021 05:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
a) there was a consent- and warrantless wiretapping program aimed at people residing inside the United States,

Is there a cite for this?
0 Replies
 
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 680
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 04:01:02