Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[mania]

The constitution has been drawn precisely to define how far the government could go in restricting individual freedom and civil rights in its duty of protecting the country.

The constitution needs to be changed if the people of America really want to authorize warrantless mass-eavesdropping and archiving of their private communications.

Unless this is done, all the mass spying is in breach of the constitution.

Exactly !

It is this as you say. If this is to be deemed legal within our Constitution then go thru teh proper channels afforded

by Our Constitution & get an amendment passed.

Why don;t they?

Because they CANNOT! As it would never legally pass muster.

Instead they use abuse tools such as declaring a National State Of Emergency

now in effect for over a decade & the nasty piece of work called the Patriot Act to side step our Constitution.

These that abuse these tools are literally the traitors & those who should be charged with treason

Edited August 9, 2013 by mania

[Publicus]

I insist my government perform its Constitutional duty to protect me against all enemies,

That is some twisted logic if in the process they are trampling your Constitutional rights.

Also you are confusing/mixing various oaths & calling it Constitutional duty

Yet the Oath of Allegiance from which you chop a piece off to create yours & leave out the most important

"that I will support and defend the Constitution"

So please do not insist that "Our" government trample the 4th amendment of that Constitution

under the guise of protection for some weak people.

We are not weak at all. Nor do we ask that our Constitution be sidestepped by those that seek to gain ever more power

over us.

Kindly don't presume to lecture me about Constitutional oaths.

I've taken Constitutional oaths several times, to include defending the United States on my life if necessary.

I'm insisting my government protect me against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Snowden is a domestic enemy of the United States who is cornered in Russia and has to come out sometime...........

Kindly don't twist my statements either to try to suit your own, always anti-government agendas. There are certain Americans who oppose everything the U.S. government does, every time, always. They are called extremists.

[mania]

There are certain Americans who oppose everything the U.S. government does, every time, always. They are called extremists.

Yes some of us do oppose any & all infractions against our Constitution

Extremist? Yes there are two ends to extreme

One that extremely wants to see the Constitutional law which our country is founded on upheld

& the other that extremely allows any & all decisions of an elected government to do as they please even if it is against the constitution which they swore upon taking office to uphold & defend.

Agree to disagree as you & I have nothing in common

nuff said

Edited August 9, 2013 by mania

[simple1]

Charges have been filed by the Justice Department in a U.S. District Court itemizing alleged violations of the Espionage Act and other violations of national security laws by Edward Snowden.

Snowden admits to stealing U.S. global national security documents and disseminating them, says he has a whole lot more and will release them too.

The United States Government has the Constitutional right and obligation to pursue Edward Snowden, to apprehend him and to try him in a court of law. This terrifies Snowden, who failed to think through his betrayal of the United States.

Necessarily, other parties are being dragged into this too by Snowden's rash and brash actions against his own country.

I insist my government perform its Constitutional duty to protect me against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That's what is occurring, which is encouraging to me.

Snowden is trapped in Russia, where he can't stay forever. At some point in time Snowden deservedly will be cuffed and taken away.

The constitution has been drawn precisely to define how far the government could go in restricting individual freedom and civil rights in its duty of protecting the country.

The constitution needs to be changed if the people of america really want to authorize warrantless mass-eavesdropping and archiving of their private communications.

Unless this is done, all the mass spying is in breach of the constitution.

Lavabit shutting down must have been caused by something much more serious than the government requesting just Snowden's correspondence.

Here is the full message from Ladar Levison:

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know whats going onthe first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.

Whats going to happen now? Weve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Sincerely,

Ladar Levison

Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

Somewhere I read news that american cloud computing and storage providers are worried about very negative business repercussions of the spying affairs - hahaha, fools. FOOLS

On the other hand, this is an excellent opportunity for providers based in neutral countries with strong privacy laws to expand their service - who has a list?

Singapore, Switzerland... are there more? maybe Canada?

Interesting to note that Australian government agencies & some Australian based corporates will not use US based Web Services to host applications or data due to provisions within the Patriot Act that breach Australian data privacy laws. I use to sell a US vendor web services based application & they were forced to host the apps and data Servers in data centres on Australian soil as well as contracturally agree not to backup or transmit any client data to the vendor US data centres.

[manarak]

Interesting to note that Australian government agencies & some Australian based corporates will not use US based Web Services to host applications or data due to provisions within the Patriot Act that breach Australian data privacy laws. I use to sell a US vendor web services based application & they were forced to host the apps and data Servers in data centres on Australian soil as well as contracturally agree not to backup or transmit any client data to the vendor US data centres.

Many countries around the world already have such provisions in their data protection laws.

Some countries could have a really strong business case.

[SinglePot]

Meanwhile, unless I am mistaken Congress has yet to curtail or suspend NSA surveillance.

The USA remains the big bad wolf of the world. The neutral countries of the world, who have no bearing by definition on global issues, can host the free world's servers.

It won't change a thing in Russia and China. But who cares, human rights in those countries don't matter.

Anyway, Obama will soon be out of office and we can look forward to an alternative and superior approach to national security etc etc etc with less interference to citizen's lives.

Policies to achieve this eagerly awaited.

In the meantime, Snowden remains in Russia and presumably, with a change of leadership, will receive much more leniency and justice in accordance with the US constitution.

I look forward to following these developments.

[SinglePot]

"Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency"

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-23642880

Video of pres Obama is worth looking at.

[SinglePot]

correct link here ( I think)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23642880

[mania]

"Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency"

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-23642880

Video of pres Obama is worth looking at.

"President Barack Obama has promised" "appropriate reforms" to guarantee greater

oversight of controversial US surveillance programmes.

If we had a nickel for every time we heard that we could put a dent in the National Debt

Not to mention his ideas of "appropriate" are by his definition alone appropriate & does not imply effective

or lawful.

Edited August 10, 2013 by mania

[SinglePot]

Maybe he is also being uneconomic with the truth when he says a legal and lawful review of surveillance was planned before Snowden's revelations back in May?

Fair point about the national debt. There is another issue that is top priority for USG.

Economic relations with emerging markets are critical. A very untimely revelation by Snowden immediately prior to China party leader Xi Jinping visiting the US in June.

[chuckd]

Here's another take on the press conference. Let the messenger attacks begin.

That last sentence quoted is one of the few truthful statements this guy has made in many months.

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

Somewhere in Russia, Edward Snowden Is Smiling

By James Oliphant

August 9, 2013 | 5:31 p.m.

President Obama couldn't say it—he denied it repeatedly in fact—but Edward Snowden was very much the reason he felt compelled to stand before the national press on a sun-baked Friday August afternoon and attempt to explain why his administration would pursue reforms of its counterterrorism programs even though—and this is the tricky part—he wouldn't concede that those programs are flawed in any way.

That brings us back to Snowden, the whistleblower/patriot/traitor squirreled away somewhere in Russia after revealing key operational details of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance programs. The drip-drip of disclosures was slowly eroding the public's faith in the system, the president said Friday, and he needed to take steps to reassure the world that it wasn't being abused.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/somewhere-in-russia-edward-snowden-is-smiling-20130809

Edited August 10, 2013 by Scott
Edited for fair use

[SinglePot]

Well, that's what you get in Western democracies where there is a system of adversarial government.

There will always be people, on both sides, wishing to, if not damage the opposition, to at least score points.

Truth can be spun either way to suit, if you are clever.

China and Russia, no problem. State rules, keep your mouth shut.

This is alien to both US Democrats and Republicans presumably.

[chuckd]

Well, that's what you get in Western democracies where there is a system of adversarial government.

There will always be people, on both sides, wishing to, if not damage the opposition, to at least score points.

Truth can be spun either way to suit, if you are clever.

China and Russia, no problem. State rules, keep your mouth shut.

This is alien to both US Democrats and Republicans presumably.

Yeah, that pesky First Amendment getting in the way again.

[SinglePot]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

[midas]

ingenious solution to render the NSA’s spy program useless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4z09el30f8&feature=player_embedded

[sustento]

He has been granted asylum by Russia. He is not wanted in Russia. If he comes to your home, who do you call? The Russian police? The US Embassy?

I don't think the laws to which you are referring extend outside the USA. They did not help him escape.

I don't know for sure and maybe one of our legal eagles can shed more light on this.

I'm a citizen of the United States and subject to its code of laws whether I'm at home or abroad.

If I harbor a fugitive from US justice at my expat home in a foreign country I've violated a US law. As a citizen, I'm culpable, a perp.

The asylum is not recognized by US law.

If Snowden today tried to fly to, say, Venezuela, the U.S. Government would go after him. Any asylum papers would get tossed into the garbage can.

Then the US Government would come after me, or wait for me. I'd probably lose the passport by revocation during the commotion.

U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions. The UN Amnesty Treaty/Convention has its provisos and caveats.

US legal agencies have no jurisdiction outside the USA. They might operate in a country with the agreement of that country's government but US sovereignty does not trump any other foreign government's laws or actions.

[SinglePot]

Well I don't know about you guys but if he turns up on my doorstep in Thailand I'm straight on the phone to Betty in customer services at the NSA.

[mania]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Why?

Is it not possible to have solidarity standing behind what the USA is suppose to be?

A Constitutional republic governed within Constitutional Law boundaries?

Seems it served us very well for a long time.

Edited August 10, 2013 by mania

[Credo]

Well, there doesn't seem to be too many congressmen who are trying to due away with the Patriot Act. Both parties have been rather mute on the subject.

[mania]

Well, there doesn't seem to be too many congressmen who are trying to due away with the Patriot Act. Both parties have been rather mute on the subject.

True that

One has to wonder how informed the general citizenry is as to how things have come to

to where they stand today. If the citizenry is not calling their reps & asking for changes

then it is understandable none will be forthcoming.

Edited August 10, 2013 by mania

[manarak]

Seems to me when a country is under threat there needs to be a bit more...how should I put it....solidarity.

Maybe it needs a national disaster or a war to unity the citizens of the US. ( I am not advocating either btw.)

Fact is the US has some big challenges at the moment, 2 of those being the state of the economy/people's livelihoods, and national security.

The present US Government? Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

For what it's worth, I quite like Obama. And I was well pleased when Mrs Obama snubbed Mr and Mrs Xi Jinping on their recent visit to the US.

Sorry, but the USA are not strategically threatened by the terrorists. They could kill 5000 americans a year and it still wouldn't be a major threat to the USA.

Sure, it frightens and angers citizens, as well as kills some.

But destabilize the country? no. Unless the bee stings frighten politicians enough for them to break the constitution and ignore civil rights. *THEN* the country gets destabilized.

[SinglePot]

"Obama calls for changes to Patriot Act, surveillance procedures"

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-patriot-act-oversight-20130809,0,2604335.story

[Credo]

I've followed this a little and I am aware that Obama is calling for changes, but I really wonder if he will get the cooperation of Congress, which is very antagonistic toward the President, especially the right-wing of the Republican party.

Congress should have been the first ones that were up in arms about this, but they weren't. I wonder why?

I would hazard a guess that most changes will be cosmetic. It's pretty difficult to have transparency in intelligence operations.

I was against the Patriot Act from the very beginning. I was never very vocal about it, because at the time, the situation was pretty tense. I don't like anything like this being called "Patriot" because it wasn't and still isn't. Espionage is dirty, sneaky work and it may work for a country but it makes a mockery of the use of the word 'patriot'.

[Publicus]

He has been granted asylum by Russia. He is not wanted in Russia. If he comes to your home, who do you call? The Russian police? The US Embassy?

I don't think the laws to which you are referring extend outside the USA. They did not help him escape.

I don't know for sure and maybe one of our legal eagles can shed more light on this.

I'm a citizen of the United States and subject to its code of laws whether I'm at home or abroad.

If I harbor a fugitive from US justice at my expat home in a foreign country I've violated a US law. As a citizen, I'm culpable, a perp.

The asylum is not recognized by US law.

If Snowden today tried to fly to, say, Venezuela, the U.S. Government would go after him. Any asylum papers would get tossed into the garbage can.

Then the US Government would come after me, or wait for me. I'd probably lose the passport by revocation during the commotion.

U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions. The UN Amnesty Treaty/Convention has its provisos and caveats.

US legal agencies have no jurisdiction outside the USA. They might operate in a country with the agreement of that country's government but US sovereignty does not trump any other foreign government's laws or actions.

Your statement fails to relate to anything you quote of my posts.

In other words, tell me something I don't already know.

[sustento]

He has been granted asylum by Russia. He is not wanted in Russia. If he comes to your home, who do you call? The Russian police? The US Embassy?

I don't think the laws to which you are referring extend outside the USA. They did not help him escape.

I don't know for sure and maybe one of our legal eagles can shed more light on this.

I'm a citizen of the United States and subject to its code of laws whether I'm at home or abroad.

If I harbor a fugitive from US justice at my expat home in a foreign country I've violated a US law. As a citizen, I'm culpable, a perp.

The asylum is not recognized by US law.

If Snowden today tried to fly to, say, Venezuela, the U.S. Government would go after him. Any asylum papers would get tossed into the garbage can.

Then the US Government would come after me, or wait for me. I'd probably lose the passport by revocation during the commotion.

U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions. The UN Amnesty Treaty/Convention has its provisos and caveats.

US legal agencies have no jurisdiction outside the USA. They might operate in a country with the agreement of that country's government but US sovereignty does not trump any other foreign government's laws or actions.

Your statement fails to relate to anything you quote of my posts.

In other words, tell me something I don't already know.

Then what does the last line of your post mean? viz: "U.S. sovereignty trumps any other foreign government's laws or actions."

Edited August 10, 2013 by sustento

[SinglePot]

Any chance petty arguments between posters can be moved aside because they are obscuring progressing events and clear vision.

Cheers.

[Publicus]

Rats within the system will never be completely eliminated, but efforts must be made to keep the number of Snowdens to an absolute minimum.

The NSA Intends To Fire 90% Of Their System Administrators To Eliminate Future Leaks

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-firing-sysdadmins-2013-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare

The National Security Agency, hit by disclosures of classified data by former contractor Edward Snowden, said Thursday it intends to eliminate about 90 percent of its system administrators to reduce the number of people with access to secret information, according to Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, which is the U.S. spy agency charged with monitoring foreign electronic communications, and who told a cybersecurity conference in New York City that automating much of the work would improve security.

"What we're in the process of doing - not fast enough - is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent," he said in remarks that came as the agency is facing scrutiny after Snowden, who had been one of about 1,000 system administrators who help run the agency's networks, leaked classified details about surveillance programs to the press.

"What we've done is we've put people in the loop of transferring data, securing networks and doing things that machines are probably better at doing," Alexander said.

[SinglePot]

Pub.

I don't think this is necessarily where Obama is coming from matey.

[midas]

PRISM Futures: is is time to consider a boycott of US technology platforms? Or: we love you guys… but enough is enough!

it is particularly disappointing to observe President Obama preside over this Orwellian affair without even trying to take a meaningful stand for citizen rights that would be even remotely similar to what he pointed out with great vigor in 2005 and 2007 when he was still just a senator – watch these videos collected by the NYTimes to get more than your daily dose of reality shock.

Some key quotes: “As a senator, Mr. Obama said that lack of oversight in a proposal to reauthorize the Patriot Act “seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for” (2005) “The Bush
administration….puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and
the security we provide,” Mr. Obama, a presidential candidate, said in an August
2007 speech. He also vowed to end the “illegal wiretapping of American
citizens.” (2007).

http://www.futuristgerd.com/2013/07/06/an-ultimatum-for-america-or-we-love-you-guys-but-enough-is-enough/

Edited August 10, 2013 by midas

[Publicus]

I've followed this a little and I am aware that Obama is calling for changes, but I really wonder if he will get the cooperation of Congress, which is very antagonistic toward the President, especially the right-wing of the Republican party.

Congress should have been the first ones that were up in arms about this, but they weren't. I wonder why?

I would hazard a guess that most changes will be cosmetic. It's pretty difficult to have transparency in intelligence operations.

I was against the Patriot Act from the very beginning. I was never very vocal about it, because at the time, the situation was pretty tense. I don't like anything like this being called "Patriot" because it wasn't and still isn't. Espionage is dirty, sneaky work and it may work for a country but it makes a mockery of the use of the word 'patriot'.

Your point is well taken.

Congress, which enacts these laws, is the worst violator of personal privacy in the whole of the government.

Actually, Congress ranks second in this regard, behind only the case law history of the U.S. Supreme Court during the past 60 years.

Both have been trampling on personal privacy laws for decades, the Congress most recently with the Patriot Act which, of course, was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Congress enacted the Patriot Act in a stampede. The Supreme Court approved it more deliberatively, by parsing and snipping its way through the Constitution.

A curse on both their houses.

But the private sector is worse than the two of them together.

NSA surveillance program is one of many Big Brothers watching

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-nsa-surveillance-20130612,0,6199478.story

Have we surrendered too much privacy for convenience?

Yes/No

2,615 votes

Yes: 87% (2,274 votes)

No: 13% (341 votes)

Thanks to the technological revolution, today’s Americans live in a very different world than did previous generations. Privacy is a quaint novelty of the past, and whenever we tap into a telephone or a computer it has become the equivalent of leaving our homes and entering the town square.

If that is something we do not like, the concern goes far beyond the worry that the government may be watching -.everyone may be watching.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Publicus