Edward Snowden

[Marc]

Thought I would post up about this as I was just reading yet another article about Edward Snowden and his latest escapades into embarrasing the NSA.

 

So what do you think of what he is doing?

 

I'm kinda in 2 minds what to think about him really. One part of me says "Yeah, I deserve my privacy on the internet" and do not want government agencies snooping without my knowledge or concent. However on another point of view I would much rather these agencys have the ability to route through the internet to find whatever they need to in order to ensure pedos, terrorists etc are kept at bay and our streets safer for it.

[Andy]

I don't have anu objection as long as the government and it's various covert and other agencies

only use the information for the greater good and public safety.

Public safety and helping to uncover and remove threats to security and stopping life threatening situations fine

As opposed to taking 15 year olds to court for file sharing etc.

[Dave]

Don't mind them doing it. Think it should be a little more open though

[Marc]

Don't mind them doing it. Think it should be a little more open though

 

See I dont. The problem is that by them now being forced to be open a suspect terrorist knows to avoid xyz and it makes them easier to hide

[Dave]

See I dont. The problem is that by them now being forced to be open a suspect terrorist knows to avoid xyz and it makes them easier to hide

Yeah I see what you mean

[BlueWolf]

I applaud him for doing this. Don't simple focus on just Edward Snowden either. It's also Julian Assange and Bradley Manning that are all part of this discussion. Both have revealed documents that should've been public way earlier. I simply don't trust a government with people I do not personally know to work with my private information. It's either that information accidentally leaks out or that it's being used for other purposses it wasn't originally intended for. Weren't the employees of the NSA itself that where spying on their relatives just because they had access to it? They've tried to deny it but in my opinion it's very good this practice became publicly known.

 

See I dont. The problem is that by them now being forced to be open a suspect terrorist knows to avoid xyz and it makes them easier to hide

 

The truth it that people that mean harm to others will always be one step ahead of those that try to catch them. Before 9/11 they used the email's draft ability to send messages to each other. I cannot imagine that they've figured something else out by now. The reality is that security through obscurity simply doesn't work and should at no point to be relied on to be a secure method of working.

 

If they actually looked for terrorists than I may slightly agree with this, but in reality they go way further than that. If you are a friend who has a friend that MAY be involved in suspicious activities, it's very likely your phone phone will be monitored without your knowledge or warrant. Documents about these things have also leaked out. With the patriot act in place since 2001 this also include your full internet access. That is every email you send, every Google search you do they can legally follow.

 

Social media and other sites are actively monitored. The way they do that is by a defined list of keywords. Simply putting down a couple of them will make you suspicious. It has in fact happened before that people got their house broken in by the FBI due to what they they posted on social networks. In fact, it was a 7-year old kid that got visited by the entire FBI on his school for a misconception he posted on his twitter.

 

All of this information is now known because of whistleblowers that have made a difference. I have nothing against protecting against terrorism, but with what is currently happening is way beyond that by now and -again- I think should be made publicly aware.

 

If you're interested, here are the keywords the FBI has admitted to use/have used to monitor social media. This was two years ago, who knows what this list currently looks like.

 

 

 

 

[Jase]

The amount of terrorist activities uncovered and thwarted by this sort of intelligence gathering is staggering, they just don't all make it to main stream media, lest we live in continual panic. 

 

I am all for intelligence services doing their job with all tools at their disposal. If they didn't we would be kicking up a fuss. You simply can't have it both ways in the world we now live in. I support anything that helps keep my family safe.

[Jay]

Personally I think that the NSA, CIA,FBI etc are doing what they need to do to ensure the safety of people. The fact that they are may or may not be "snooping" doesn't affect me as I am not doing anything illegal. I think a lot of the people who are so outraged are people who have things to hide. I don't personally know anyone who has had the FBI storm in on or prosecute because of searches they made on google.

I actually think he has done more harm than good and think he should be prosecuted here. The fact that now it has been uncovered, the tactics they are using are public knowledge and now people that mean us harm could use that information.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Removed #5]

Jason, et al:  I worked at the NSA while I was in service (many years ago, I'll admit) and the world was a very different animal than it is now.  The tools they have now are something we could only dream about then and what we had then was often taken from the comic books (or seemed to be).

 

If I *really* trusted our government then I'd have to say that I don't mind having big brother looking over my shoulder.  Regrettably, I don't ...

 

Jase, You say that "The amount of terrorist activities uncovered and thwarted by this sort of intelligence gathering is staggering" and I've seen the claims that the security services have made to that effect.  That's the problem, it's what they claim.  It's falling back to the prove that something doesn't exist and I think we all know that that's a virtual impossibility.  I can make the claim that "there is no such thing as an alien." and for the nonce, I think we'd all agree that it appears to be true - but it only takes one visit by E.T. to prove the claim fallacious. 

 

Marc said, "The problem is that by them now being forced to be open a suspect terrorist knows to avoid xyz and it makes them easier to hide."  and I realize there's a degree of truth to that.  However that suggests that refraining from exposing any terrorist activity gives us more tools with which to do our work when, I think, that exposing some activities that have been thwarted would make people feel safer rather than not.

 

Do I think it's appropriate that we give any of our government unlimited access to all of our personal information?  (As the government gave itself that right with the Patriot Act.)  Not by a long shot, I still believe that it's the governments responsibility to prove a criminal act based on something other than their access to my private affairs.  To put a more specific turn to the point - I don't want to allow the IRS to have unrestrained access to my bank account, not because I've done anything illegal but specifically because I haven't done anything illegal and there would be no probable cause to examine my bank records.  (( Ignoring the fact that our tax laws are so screwed that, if they wanted, they could find something! ))

 

I am uncomfortable with what Snowden did, simply because I don't think he should have been put into the position of "whistle blowing" on things our government would have rather kept secret.

[bamills1]

I don't have anu objection as long as the government and it's various covert and other agencies

only use the information for the greater good and public safety.

Public safety and helping to uncover and remove threats to security and stopping life threatening situations fine

As opposed to taking 15 year olds to court for file sharing etc.

And that's how it should be. We're too modern of a society and a democracy at that, we don't deserve nor has any democracy before us thought it ok to give up natural rights for petty piracy or whatever you want to call it. If I download The Wolf of Wall Street and get arrested, it becomes a much bigger national concern over "invasion of privacy" but if it leads to non-English speaking people Googling "flight school east cost low cost" I am all for it.

[bamills1]

And that's how it should be. We're too modern of a society and a democracy at that, we don't deserve nor has any democracy before us thought it ok to give up natural rights for petty piracy or whatever you want to call it. If I download The Wolf of Wall Street and get arrested, it becomes a much bigger national concern over "invasion of privacy" but if it leads to non-English speaking people Googling "flight school east cost low cost" I am all for it.

Excuse me, if it leads to the arrest and capture of those people. Sorry for the generic example.

[Jay]

Thank you Al for posting that. I had no idea that you worked for them, and what you have posted is very informative.

You brought up a good point referring to the IRS, and that if they wanted to find something illegal they probably could find something illegal on pretty much anyone, whether it is intentional or not

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Elyse]

Some interesting points brought up by everyone. My two cents:

A year or so ago, I was going to take a train home instead of a plane. Then the news broke: a terrorist plot for that particular train was thwarted by the cooperation between the USA and Canadian intelligence agencies (I believe). I was supposed to be on that train. If it wasn't for their efforts, myself and many others would probably be dead.

So, I don't have a problem with intelligence gathering if it will keep me and my loved ones safe. I have nothing to hide, and have done nothing illegal.

But, at the same time, I don't want them snooping through my personal information/etc because I believe I have a right to my privacy. Not sure if the rumours are true, but apparently the NSA has been selling personal information to third parties (advertisers, etc)? Not that I'd put that very high on my list of concerns. I'd rather have my information at risk to being sold to third party advertising companies, than not have any monitoring system in place at all to protect society.

In this day and age, I don't really think we have a choice. Its obviously not ideal, but as long as terrorists and etc continue to exist, then I believe the safest solution is to monitor a person's activities as long as there is reasonable doubt to do so. 
 

[Jase]

I studied Security and Counter Terrorism at Uni for a while quite recently when I was looking at a career change. Have studied and read hundreds of journal articles on this very subject, I have opinions, albeit not having worked in the field or experience that Al has.

 

One of the things to consider is that fear is the main weapon in the terrorists arsenal and media are a powerful ally in conveying fear. So I stand by my statement regarding the effectiveness of surveillance and keeping the vast majority away from the media. To starve the terrorist of media is to take away the oxygen they need to survive.

 

People will always be upset with increases in security and what they perceive as invasions of personal freedoms and privacy. I for one think any government that didn't monitor all modes of communication would be extremely foolish. 

 

People like Snowden and Assange stand under their self righteous flag, believing they are the moral crusaders of the new millennia, pfftt... to me they are just ego maniacs with little regard for the general public and safety of others. 

[Removed #5]

One of my concerns, when we're speaking of "thwarted plots", is the amount of 'cooperation' given by the law enforcement agencies.  If you look at this link about unsuccessful terrorist plots since 9/11 many of them sound absolutely serious - until you read the background information.  The FBI had to provide the non-operative explosives to be used in one 'attack' because the suspects were too inept to find any on their own.  It's too bad that "general stupidity" isn't a crime because many of the incidents on that link would fall into that category.
 
In cases like the "underwear bomber" ( which shows how effective airport security is not ) all of the intelligences in the world were unable to foil his plot (and it was indeed a world wide plot with international jihadist connections) - it was his own ineptness that "foiled" his attempt to blow up the plane.  Ditto for the "shoe bomber".  Both of these would have been disastrous but nothing the security services did "thwarted" their plots - no amount of surveillance was effective.
 
From what I read we are unable to successfully thwart the plotters unless we 'assist' them which strikes me as particularly accommodating.  Many of the 'plots' were 'wishful thinking' but completely impractical. For example, Assem Hammoud, was accused of a plot to explode bombs ( that he didn't have ) in the subways of New York to flood them all with the East River - problem being, the subways are above the water level of the East River.  As I said "criminal stupidity" really shouldn't be a crime.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are real, valid threats to our nations security.  Externally we have the Jihadists who want to destroy the "evil Satan", but we in the the US have our own white (Aryan Nations, the KKK and their ilk), black (New Black Panther Party, etc), red  and yellow groups who seek the overthrow of the government for their own purposes - but, personally, I think that more orthodox investigative techniques would be considerably more effective at thwarting them than the extremes to which we have devolved.

[Jase]

...if you want to be proactive rather than reactive (and I personally believe this to be necessary) then surely intelligence gathering has to be the core focus from which other types on enforcement can operate from?

[Removed #5]

...if you want to be proactive rather than reactive (and I personally believe this to be necessary) then surely intelligence gathering has to be the core focus from which other types on enforcement can operate from?

 

Jason, I'm emphatically NOT arguing that intelligence gathering is not necessary.  All of my time in service (outside of military schools) was spent in the coordination of international cooperation in intelligence gathering against our specific targets. 

 

Excuse me while I give a couple of acceptable examples.  While stationed in the RVN, we located (by communications) a active NVA regiment (I think) moving south from NV.  Repeated briefing of the General Staff met with resistance since they had "encountered no such units" in the field.  It wasn't until Chu Lai underwent a very effective rocket attack that the staff were even willing to consider that they might have been wrong.  Point:  good effective intelligence isn't worth the paper it takes to write it up if it's not implemented.  The lack of ongoing coordination between the Agency's of the Department of Homeland Security makes much of the work they do, individually, ineffective.

 

In another, an apparent total cessation of military communications by the target country lead the NSA to believe that they had implemented a totally "wired" communication net.  What we, in the field, had found was that the military had in fact implemented two approaches; one was a greater dependence on wired communication which can't be monitored by conventional means as well as a movement to other, more secure, communications which the NSA determined to be "commercial fishing activity" until we showed them that several of the target sites were located on mountains well within the countries boundaries.  Point: assuming that "something is so" because it fits the picture we want to see makes the intelligence gathered worthless.

 

I can't speak to the issue of international cooperation in todays world, I'm admittedly much to far out of that picture.  I can speak to the obvious incompetence of the Agencies within the US - because of some of the information that has come out because of Snowden and the like.  I maintain that following more traditional, orthodox intelligence gathering techniques and implementing a more cohesive intelligence community would garner more actionable information than all the knee jerk violations of individual and international law that we've seen to date.

[BlueWolf]

Personally I think that the NSA, CIA,FBI etc are doing what they need to do to ensure the safety of people. The fact that they are may or may not be "snooping" doesn't affect me as I am not doing anything illegal. I think a lot of the people who are so outraged are people who have things to hide. I don't personally know anyone who has had the FBI storm in on or prosecute because of searches they made on google.

I actually think he has done more harm than good and think he should be prosecuted here. The fact that now it has been uncovered, the tactics they are using are public knowledge and now people that mean us harm could use that information.

 

Would you allow a random person into your house and let them look through all your cabinets, looking under your bed, standing next  to you while you make personal calls to someone else? I bet you don't like the idea of that. But why? Because you had nothing to hide, right?

 

I'm not willing to remove the locks of my door just because the police wants to investigate what I do at home at random times, nor will I do the same with my online identity. This has nothing to do whether I did something illegal or not.

[Jay]

You bring up an interesting point.  In regards to internet privacy, I don't know if there is any expectation of privacy when you are online, sending emails, posting on blogs, etc.  I have a constitutional right not to allow someone in my home, especially law enforcement, unless they have probable cause that I have done something illegal.  So, no I would not allow anyone in my home or to search my property without probable cause. 

 

I can see both sides of this story, I am just not outraged that the government may or may not be spying on my phone records of knowing what I search for on google.  I don't feel that I have that expectation of privacy online than I do in my own home.  While I think that people do have a right against unlawful searches, the government has a duty to protect it's citizens.  So it must be hard to have a balance, and even difficult after 9-11

 

Would you allow a random person into your house and let them look through all your cabinets, looking under your bed, standing next  to you while you make personal calls to someone else? I bet you don't like the idea of that. But why? Because you had nothing to hide, right?

 

I'm not willing to remove the locks of my door just because the police wants to investigate what I do at home at random times, nor will I do the same with my online identity. This has nothing to do whether I did something illegal or not.