Edward Snowden: Patriot, Whistleblower or Traitor?

[ben says]

You know you can clear cookies right? Or private browse if you want to.  You should look into it, that is, unless you want Nordstrom ads, in that case, it's your choice, more power to you.

I have to be one of the only people who love their targeted ads.

[JayBird]

What do we know now that we didn't before? What secrets did he reveal?  What did the government lie about?  I'd really like to know your answers to these questions.  When I came to this site the top banner advertisement was for Nordstrom.  Why?  Because I frequently visit the Nordstrom website, how is Nordstrom tracking me different from the government?

I'm in agreement with this, my question is where have all of you been the past 15 years? When I was in college in 1999 we actually had a class that taught us this very thing. The NSA has always been to spy on us, at least as far as I understand it. How can anyone think they can use a cell phone that can pinpoint their exact location (mine usually tells me what corner of house I'm in), cash a check for me, and let me videoconference with my brother on the deck of his FFG half a world away ... of course they have been spying on us. If we know they're spying on us, then it would logically lead to the fact there must be some wa to sift through information and search for certain things or people. Look at the recent incident in Boston and how quickly they moved in, yet a murder can happen in front of over 200 cameras in Times Square and they have no leads. If you are surprised by this "Shocking Whistleblower News" than just stick your head back in the sand and continue living your life. As long as you aren't trying to plan some terrorist event you have a slim chance of being affected in any way by this.

In my personal opinion, I don't think the answer is to make them tell us when they're spying or whom they're watching because governments are never fully forthcoming and truthful.  In all honesty, I am more worried about a bank teller moving money out of my account than I am about some desk spook listening to me call home to see what I'm suppose to pick up for dinner. Instead, I think the real question is how do you move on with this knowledge?

[marksjax]

I would suggest we don't accept it and move on.
The very base intrusion into your privacy is what should be making you mad. The fact that it does not bother you and you are seemingly willing to accept it as a way of life is quite stunning to me.

This is unconstitutional and hopefully proven to be illegal. If the Supreme Court winds up saying it's legal then I'm going off grid and back to land line and snail mail. At least that way they have to work at it a bit harder.

We are American Citizens, we are not Islamic Extremists. This policy paints with a brush as broad as Texas. This assumes guilt not innocence and your patterns are run through a software matrix that decides if you are a threat. Then they really start watching you.

The internet has changed society and this is an example that not all of these changes are for the better.

The government has no business listening to your, your relatives and your friends phone calls. Unless you are a John Gotti type they would never get a court order signed by a judge. Now they get a 'secret court' to approve one for 300 million people? Who sits on this court? Is there really a secret court?
Be afraid, be very afraid...

And this is somehow acceptable?
Wow!

[spuwho]

Those who work in the technology world have known about the NSA actions for many years.

Shoot, they have been buying up all of the used SAN around the globe to add to their server farms.

After 9-11, they accelerated their purchasing so much that they were knocking on the vendors to help them find stuff.

The only favor Google, Yahoo and their ilk did for the NSA was to make Hadoop and MapReduce open source. It allows the NSA to sort through the "big data" way, way faster.

As for Mr. Snowden, the root of his issue was the cavalier posture of NSA superiors when it came to caretaking of the data. The lack of "respect" for the nature of the data and its sources is what unnerved him. His assumption that the election of Obama would somehow change this was a bit idealistic as our CoC has no visibility in NSA ops.

There is a whistleblower process for federal employees and contractors to follow when they see issues in their workplace. However, most whistleblower processes are for identifying criminal or discrimination behaviors, not for staff to challenge constitutionality of actions. If the FISA Court found certain NSA actions illegal, then I would say his effort did what he intended. But if the court rules that there was no illegal activities taking place, then it is up to the ACLU suit to determine constitutionality. Either way he is in for a really tough life.

[FSBA]

[JayBird]

Marksjax, I do not disagree with you. It is a violation of every citizens rights. However, I am not foolish enough to think that it will stop because it will not. Any thing this will effect will be shined up and given a new name, moved to a different warehouse or have its leader replaced. But the machine will continue. Though you have every right to complain about city burning down, you have waited until the entire city was burning to begin looking for your fire extinguisher when instead you should be looking at what you will do in the ashes. I cannot make a judgement on this Snowden charachter because we yet to hear all of the facts, especially on his side. But, with 'whistleblowing' becoming the norm, and with others saying there is protection here, it does not bode well that he fled and is hiding. But that is just a personal feeling, judgement pending.

[Debbie Thompson]

This is a very slippery slope.  Protection from unreasonable search and seizure was written into the consitutition for a reason.  What if these people were knocking on your door and searching your home without a search warrant?  Would this accepting attitude some of the posters have still exist?  Our country's founders could not have foreseen broadsweeping electronic searches and seizures, but they knew the concept of citizen protection,  and knew we could need protection from our own government.

[BridgeTroll]

This is a very slippery slope.  Protection from unreasonable search and seizure was written into the consitutition for a reason.  What if these people were knocking on your door and searching your home without a search warrant?  Would this accepting attitude some of the posters have still exist?  Our country's founders could not have foreseen broadsweeping electronic searches and seizures, but they knew the concept of citizen protection,  and knew we could need protection from our own government.

What if these people were knocking on your door and searching your home without a search warrant?

That certainly would be a different story Debbie.  From everything I have read... and heard... from Mr Obama, Diane Feinstien... and a slew of others... a warrant is indeed required to listen to the actual conversations.  That warrant is issued by a panel of Federal judges (who rotate through) only after a case is made for probable cause.

These protections were enacted to provide the security against illegal search and siezure.  Now if the above listed folks are lying (cause I know your not calling the President a liar) then I join with you in outrage.  So far... all I see is this Snowden dude hinting at illegal activity... and has yet to show any...

[BridgeTroll]

This should help answer the question of legality... This case was decided in 1979...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

Should the ECPA be changed?  Good question...