Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How far will the Chinese go to protect Snowden? They have a knowledgeable defector who can lay waste to the government. The US extradites and the Chinese say no.
Obama will not make this man his Helen of Troy.
When Xi was patting obama on the head making nice Xi KNEW that he had the goods.
Since when is it any big surprise the government spies on the denizens of this country?
I'm not thrilled with the concept but understand it. I am disgusted if such spying was used for political power and political gain instead of using that info and ability to protect said denizens of the USA.
Logic dictates that if the Government wanted the right to spy on us, they (the founders) wouldn't have written the 4th Amendment. That's why it's such a surprise.
Does anyone doubt that Romney had a similar program specifically designed for his election campaign - although probably not as sophisticated?
Almost everyone on the planet doubts that.
In fact, before you asked this question, I would have said everyone did.
Romney's campaign used GOP Vault, or something like that.
I don't really know much about it because voter databases are generally jealously partisan, Republican campaigns and non-profits use entirely different software which I have no experience with.
Since when is it any big surprise the government spies on the denizens of this country?
I'm not thrilled with the concept but understand it. I am disgusted if such spying was used for political power and political gain instead of using that info and ability to protect said denizens of the USA.
Logic dictates that if the Government wanted the right to spy on us, they (the founders) wouldn't have written the 4th Amendment. That's why it's such a surprise.
As with all rights, the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. Government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights.
For example:
Can ones phone or internet records be considered property, does government accessing these records constitute a seizure, and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that property?
Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to ones phone records or internet communications?
And does one retain a possessory interest in the property that is his phone records, or has that property been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?
The Framers also expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between National security and personal liberty.
Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?
As with all rights, the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. Government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights.
For example:
Can ones phone or internet records be considered property, does government accessing these records constitute a seizure, and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that property?
Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to ones phone records or internet communications?
And does one retain a possessory interest in the property that is his phone records, or has that property been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?
The Framers also expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between National security and personal liberty.
Almost everyone on the planet doubts that.
In fact, before you asked this question, I would have said everyone did.
Romney's campaign used GOP Vault, or something like that.
I don't really know much about it because voter databases are generally jealously partisan, Republican campaigns and non-profits use entirely different software which I have no experience with.
We are not talking about the data, we are talking about the program to analyze the data. Romney spent the entire campaign letting Obama control the talking points and the social media, his campaign obviously didn't have the tech savvy Obama's did.
Since when is it any big surprise the government spies on the denizens of this country?
I'm not thrilled with the concept but understand it. I am disgusted if such spying was used for political power and political gain instead of using that info and ability to protect said denizens of the USA.
Logic dictates that if the Government wanted the right to spy on us, they (the founders) wouldn't have written the 4th Amendment. That's why it's such a surprise.
As with all rights, the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. Government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights.
For example:
1. Can one’s phone or internet records be considered ‘property,’ does government accessing these records constitute a ‘seizure,’ and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that ‘property’?
2. Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to one’s phone records or internet communications?
3. And does one retain a possessory interest in the ‘property’ that is his phone records, or has that ‘property’ been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?
4.The Framers also expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between National security and personal liberty.
Romney's campaign used GOP Vault, or something like that.
I don't really know much about it because voter databases are generally jealously partisan, Republican campaigns and non-profits use entirely different software which I have no experience with.
We are not talking about the data, we are talking about the program to analyze the data. Romney spent the entire campaign letting Obama control the talking points and the social media, his campaign obviously didn't have the tech savvy Obama's did.
Of course.
But as I've been trying to explain, there's nothing remarkable about the "technology" of the Obama campaign's program. Romney's campaign had a bunch of separate databases, each doing a different part - a voter file, a volunteer database, and a fundraising database. Obama had one single program that combined everything.
Obama's dominance of social media wasn't due to some magical computer program, it was done by the online organizers who worked for the campaign. Same with "talking points".
The software is a tool that made their jobs easier, not anything more than that.
"They" hate "us" for the actions of the U.S. government. You can't blame Snowden for that. Regardless, we have to be able to hold our government accountable for its illegal actions, and whistleblowers are an integral part of that process.
And you seemed not to grasp the "whether or not we played a role in them hating us is beside the point" part. We can hold our government accountable by less expositive means. We don't hold our government accountable by sabotaging it.
Yes, and how do you propose that happen in this case, absent Snowden? Nobody knew it was going on, so how can anybody hold them accountable for it? Not to mention how, if you watch the interview, he mentions that he tried to go through official channels with his concerns, and was repeatedly rebuffed. Without whistleblowers we don't even know that these things are taking place, and are thus unable to hold anybody accountable for them.
And you seemed not to grasp the "whether or not we played a role in them hating us is beside the point" part. We can hold our government accountable by less expositive means. We don't hold our government accountable by sabotaging it.
Yes, and how do you propose that happen in this case, absent Snowden? Nobody knew it was going on, so how can anybody hold them accountable for it? Not to mention how, if you watch the interview, he mentions that he tried to go through official channels with his concerns, and was repeatedly rebuffed. Without whistleblowers we don't even know that these things are taking place, and are thus unable to hold anybody accountable for them.
That's a cop out Kevin. He could have at least leaked it to the American media, as did the one in the Rosen Case. Just because we didn't see them do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. The evidence is already there! There is NO NEED for this type of renegade/vigilante behavior. Heck this crap has been going on since 2006, as if we didn't already know, Mr. Kennedy. His heart was in the right place, but his intentions were not. If you are willing to break the law, how can I trust you to uphold it?
No, because I don't believe anybody could possibly make the argument that the Fourth Amendment has meant anything to the federal government in a very long time.
That's ok. Your "belief" is obviously defective and without rational basis.
That must be it.
When WikiLeaks burst onto the international stage in 2010, the small Nordic nation of Iceland offered it a safe haven. Now American whistleblower Edward Snowden may be seeking that countrys protection, and at least one member of its parliament says shes ready to help.
On Sunday evening Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir and Smari McCarthy, executive director of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, issued a statement of support for Snowden, the Booz Allen Hamilton staffer who identified himself to the Guardian newspaper as the source of a series of top secret documents outlining the NSAs massive surveillance of foreigners and Americans.
Whereas IMMI is based in Iceland, and has worked on protections of privacy, furtherance of government transparency, and the protection of whistleblowers, we feel it is our duty to offer to assist and advise Mr. Snowden to the greatest of our ability, their statement reads. We are already working on detailing the legal protocols required to apply for asylum, and will over the course of the week be seeking a meeting with the newly appointed interior minister of Iceland, Mrs. Hanna Birna Kristjánsdóttir, to discuss whether an asylum request can be processed in a swift manner, should such an application be made.
Yes, and how do you propose that happen in this case, absent Snowden? Nobody knew it was going on, so how can anybody hold them accountable for it? Not to mention how, if you watch the interview, he mentions that he tried to go through official channels with his concerns, and was repeatedly rebuffed. Without whistleblowers we don't even know that these things are taking place, and are thus unable to hold anybody accountable for them.
That's a cop out Kevin. He could have at least leaked it to the American media, as did the one in the Rosen Case. Just because we didn't see them do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. The evidence is already there! There is NO NEED for this type of renegade/vigilante behavior. Heck this crap has been going on since 2006, as if we didn't already know, Mr. Kennedy. His heart was in the right place, but his intentions were not. If you are willing to break the law, how can I trust you to uphold it?
Glenn Greenwald is an American, and that's who he leaked it to. Talk about a cop out. Who cares if he leaked it to the Guardian or the NY Times?
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
This argument is so disingenuous, that he "broke the law." It's only illegal because the government made it illegal to protect itself from being held accountable for what it knew was its own illegal behavior. Laws like that should be broken.
That's a cop out Kevin. He could have at least leaked it to the American media, as did the one in the Rosen Case. Just because we didn't see them do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. The evidence is already there! There is NO NEED for this type of renegade/vigilante behavior. Heck this crap has been going on since 2006, as if we didn't already know, Mr. Kennedy. His heart was in the right place, but his intentions were not. If you are willing to break the law, how can I trust you to uphold it?
Glenn Greenwald is an American, and that's who he leaked it to. Talk about a cop out. Who cares if he leaked it to the Guardian or the NY Times?
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
This argument is so disingenuous, that he "broke the law." It's only illegal because the government made it illegal to protect itself from being held accountable for what it knew was its own illegal behavior. Laws like that should be broken.
No, it is illegal because he signed a non disclosure agreement with the government (You). He broke faith with you (The Government). he has released classified information to the public which includes our enemies.
On the other hand, the government has taken the Pat Act and stretched it way beyond what was meant. Our beloved congress needs to meet and put in some overtime reeling this back and placing definitions where needed. And if not that repealing it completely which would be detrimental to the security of the USA. I have little doubt that the way this has been used is unconstitutional.
Yet the man is still guilty and should be brought back to face trial.
I agree with your opinion of his action. However I haven't seen anything that remotely sounds like he leaked National Security information. He merely "leaked" information that was already common knowledge: the authorities look for patterns in phone activity, the horror. The authorities monitor emails of foreigners in an effort to catch terrorists, oh my!That's a cop out Kevin. He could have at least leaked it to the American media, as did the one in the Rosen Case. Just because we didn't see them do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it. The evidence is already there! There is NO NEED for this type of renegade/vigilante behavior. Heck this crap has been going on since 2006, as if we didn't already know, Mr. Kennedy. His heart was in the right place, but his intentions were not. If you are willing to break the law, how can I trust you to uphold it?
Glenn Greenwald is an American, and that's who he leaked it to. Talk about a cop out. Who cares if he leaked it to the Guardian or the NY Times?
So you knew about PRISM and Verizon turning over everybody's data the U.S. government before Snowden leaked this story? Why didn't you say anything? Of course you didn't. Nobody knew the scope of the spying.
This argument is so disingenuous, that he "broke the law." It's only illegal because the government made it illegal to protect itself from being held accountable for what it knew was its own illegal behavior. Laws like that should be broken.
No, it is illegal because he signed a non disclosure agreement with the government (You). He broke faith with you (The Government). he has released classified information to the public which includes our enemies.
On the other hand, the government has taken the Pat Act and stretched it way beyond what was meant. Our beloved congress needs to meet and put in some overtime reeling this back and placing definitions where needed. And if not that repealing it completely which would be detrimental to the security of the USA. I have little doubt that the way this has been used is unconstitutional.
Yet the man is still guilty and should be brought back to face trial.
