Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SXSW: Edward Snowden Swipes At NSA

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-stab-at-thee dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "In a Google Hangout with an auditorium full of South by Southwest attendees, government whistleblower (and former NSA employee) Edward Snowden suggested that encrypted communication should become more ubiquitous and easier to use for the majority of Internet denizens. 'The way we interact with [encrypted email and communications] is not good,' he said from somewhere within Russia, where he resides under the conditions of a one-year asylum. 'It needs to be out there, it needs to happen automatically, it needs to happen seamlessly.' For his part, Snowden still believes that companies should store user data that contributes directly to their respective business: 'It's not that you can't collect any data, you should only collect the data and hold it as long as necessary for the operation of the business.' He also couldn't resist some choice swipes at his former employer, accusing high-ranking intelligence officials Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander of harming the world's cyber-security—and by extension, United States national security—by emphasizing offensive operations over the defense of communications. 'America has more to lose than anyone else when every attack succeeds,' Snowden said. 'When you are the one country that has sort of a vault that's more full than anyone else's, it makes no sense to be attacking all day.'"

63 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Edward Snowden - A thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How very objective of you. You must have all the particulars of this case to have judged him so thoroughly.

    I hope someone treats you the same way in your future.

  2. Re:Edward Snowden - A thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you american? Because if you are, you may be overlooking the fact that to *some* people your founding fathers were themselves traitors and thiefs...

  3. Re:The NSA - A thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The NSA is a thief that we are putting up on a higher ledge that we do anyone else. They should have had their 15 minutes of fame already and then we should put them out to dry.

  4. What exact laws were broken? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a Canadian, what I'm not clear on is whether there are exact American laws dictating what the NSA can and cannot do? If there are laws, and they have been broken, can anyone be charged, and if not, why not?

    I realize the standard answers involve political interference, corruption blah blah blah, but on a purely academic level is there a means to charge anyone with a crime?

    1. Re:What exact laws were broken? by rlp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    2. Re:What exact laws were broken? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

      In other words, OP, the NSA has every legal right to spy on you without giving you due process, but has absolutely zero right to spy on Americans without a properly issued warrant.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:What exact laws were broken? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.

      But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.

      That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.

      So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.

    4. Re:What exact laws were broken? by bradrum · · Score: 2

      Specifically, the 4th amendment, to the US constitution protecting US citizens against unreasonable search and seizures. Normally this would involve anything searched or seized without warrant.

      Where the federal government goes to a court and requests some case for the search or seizure of specific information. Anything that deviates from these requests and the specific information they obtain warrants for is forbidden and against the law. So anyone that is involved in any of the warrant-less surveillance of US citizens either directly or indirectly should be thrown in jail.

      So this procedure has been shown to be exact opposite of what the NSA and FBI have been doing. They have been collecting information under blanket approvals issued by some secret kangaroo court and then using parallel construction to establish some kind of case against those that get caught up in the net.

    5. Re:What exact laws were broken? by bberens · · Score: 2

      And it's a little gray as to whether or not the NSA can sell it's data about you to the Canadian intelligence services and/or purchase data about Americans from foreign services. When I say it's a little gray, what I mean is that they do it and it appears to be technically legal.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    6. Re: What exact laws were broken? by gIobaljustin · · Score: 2

      In fact, Americans privacy rights were protected via filters, which the leaks actually revealed.

      Yeah, they're definitely protected from the collection of all the so-called "metadata" that the NSA loves collecting. Oh, wait... they're not. Meaningless filters don't help the situation when they're still collecting data.

      Why do you government bootlickers even bother?

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    7. Re:What exact laws were broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whatever they did, James R. Clapper was willing to commit perjury to hide it.

    8. Re:What exact laws were broken? by nucrash · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to have a problem swapping data with GCHQ, nor do they have a problem having GCHQ taking on tasks that are out of the NSA's jurisdiction and vice versa. What's Canada but a good ole offshoot of the UK to swap data with?

      --
      Place something witty here
    9. Re:What exact laws were broken? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The source of the data doesn't matter. If they trade it with GCHQ or hack it from my PC themselves, it's still an unreasonable search and seizure if I'm not under suspicion of a crime.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re: What exact laws were broken? by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Does the money feel dirty when you spend it, or do you just block it out?

      --
      ... whatever ...
    11. Re: What exact laws were broken? by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      It's basically the same, senseless BS as the GP, just with different words

      It's the same... other than the fact that I take a different position entirely.

      and the added bonus of the poster using words like "metadata" that s/he clearly doesn't understand.

      That I don't understand, or that the general public doesn't understand? Nothing in my comment shows a lack of understanding.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    12. Re: What exact laws were broken? by Cenan · · Score: 1

      All types of idiocy are equally valuable here, rest assured. I did start moderating here, but decided I'd rather participate in the discussion with my actual logged in account, contrary to the whining scumbags that come here and berate us for wanting privacy - utilizing this site's generous mechanisms for anonymity and posting as FUCKING anon. Pathetic really.

      And yeah, who cares about the trolls? It's /. shills and trolls are here for our amusement.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    13. Re:What exact laws were broken? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.

      Spying was known to the founders, and they expected that if a Spy was caught the Spy would be killed. That worked in both directions. While spying is certainly something we can see benefit in, the US Constitutional has laws protecting spies. The job of a spy is to break the law and ignore basic human rights.

      Part of the escalation of the Government has to claim that "People" are not all "People" and they use that abomination of the term to grant themselves powers. This is why they kill "Combatant" age people and not "Civilian" when there is collateral damage in the Middle East. The language chosen both today and when our Constitution was written is done so very intentionally, pay attention to it!!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:What exact laws were broken? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.

      Disagree - it's commonly accepted that when the Constitution refers to, "the People," it is de facto referring to "the American People," because the founders themselves made such a distinction.

      Evidence: Check out the difference in wording between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments:

      Fourth:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      ... and the Fifth:

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Obviously, a distinction was made, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the Fourth (and First and Second and Ninth and Tenth) applies only to American citizens, whereas the Fifth (and Sixth and Seventh and Eighth) refers to all persons being held to answer for a crime.

      Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary; take note, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that the men who wrote it intended for the Second Amendment to protect the right of foreign persons to keep and bear armaments.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:What exact laws were broken? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that what data is "yours" is a tricky legal question.

      Don't tell me it's not. It is. Certainly lots of people disagree with the current legal opinions on ownership of data and what that means for 4th-Amendment protections. That's fine. But sorting out ownership of data held by third parties is difficult, so simply pointing at the 4th Amendment is facile.

      The problem is that the NSA really is looking at data about you that is held by third parties. (At least, that we know of.) Things like telephone call records and bank activity are gathered and stored by a party that is not you, but the data itself is about you. Currently, this data is not considered "yours", and thus is not protected by the 4th Amendment. If the data were instead sitting on your computer, it would be protected and would require a warrant. (This gets uglier with a service like Gmail, where the data is stored by a third party, but could very reasonably be considered "yours". Uglier still if, say, you're using AWS to host a site.) So the NSA can simply ask these third parties for the data. Law enforcement agencies can and have been doing this for a long time, but their requests are at least more targeted.

      The short answer to why the NSA shouldn't be doing this, though, is that their charter stipulates that, like the military, they are only permitted to target non-Americans. It's law enforcement's job to target Americans.

    16. Re:What exact laws were broken? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah, but *they* didn't do the search and seizure, they just purchased some information.

      As I once heard a lawyer put it:"People tend to think of the law as a line in the sand, but in truth it's more like a loose string pinned in place in a few spots - lots of play as to exactly which side you are on". I think the current situation is a good example of just how badly that can be abused, especially by institutions that get a say in exactly where the pins are, and how tight the string.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:What exact laws were broken? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Neither of those Bills are restricting to "Citizens of the United States". I'm at work so will have to dig where that specific language is used, but it is used very sparingly intentionally in the rare case that it's used (I believe 1 time).

      If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers? England's ideology would have matched their ideology if that was the case, and England's ideology did not match hence we have our own country and constitution. Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.

      The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done. There are no inconsistencies in the original bill of rights meanings for various words (amendments later would obviously have slightly different language).

      Your evidence is in the words themselves, but you can read the Federalist Papers in addition to notes by the founders, first congress, biographies, etc... The mistake most people make is trying to claim a word used in the Constitution means one thing in one area and another thing somewhere else, and it does not.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:What exact laws were broken? by jodido · · Score: 1

      There are laws, there are always laws, there always have been laws. But the supersecret govt spy agencies--and this is true in Canada, too, and the UK, France, etc--just ignore the laws. The laws are on the books so liberals can claim that there is "oversight." But there isn't any oversight.

    19. Re:What exact laws were broken? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers?

      Well, it is a generality, and it's not; we think of "people" a little differently than our ancestors did. For example, they didn't count African slaves as a whole person, rather 3/5ths of one (at least, for taxation and voting purposes), and Native Americans? Hell, they weren't people at all, but rather savages.

      Also, keep in mind that the Constitution was written after the colonists declared independence from the British Empire, so the stuff written therein is less about "we want the English to stop doing this stuff to us," and more about "When we make our own government, these are the rules they'll have to play by."

      Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.

      I fail to see where someone's expectations while traveling abroad applies to the laws of another nation. Of course, to that end (and as I already pointed out), the fact that the Constitutional Amendments involving due process are written with that vague term, "a person," rather than the more specific, "The people," which actually supports my contention rather than contradicting it.

      The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done.

      I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:What exact laws were broken? by davecb · · Score: 1

      It's legal for them to provide it to CSE, but CSE says it''s illegal for them to ask... and it may be illegal to accept.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    21. Re:What exact laws were broken? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      I should point out that rationalle makes absolutely no sense: It doesn't matter if the data is mine or Twitter's or Verizon's, you still need a warrant to serve to whoever owns the harddrives. Verizon doesn't deserve any less protection than me, a sole proprietor.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    22. Re:What exact laws were broken? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That is particularly complicated.

      The third party (e.g., Verizon) does have some degree of protection.

      I suppose the ugly version is that they're less motivated to protect your data than you are (or, equally, than they are to protect their own data).

    23. Re:What exact laws were broken? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Nope, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. I'm going to extract something from the Wiki here for simplicity. Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier. There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.

      From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."

      Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

      In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.

      If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men. The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".

      I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."

      Persons living in the US would be considered "people" and anyone can keep and bear arms under that amendment whether citizens or not. I think you need to read some history to see who owned guns and who was in the country fighting during the Revolutionary war and even the war of 1812, wars against Indians, war with Mexico, and helk even the Civil War. Here is a hint, it was not a couple rich white guys fighting themselves in these wars.

      Your last statement also contains false information. Read the US Constitution again, because person is not mentioned in limiting the Federal Governments powers. States are given authority that the Federal Government does not have.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    24. Re:What exact laws were broken? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier.

      I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.

      There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.

      I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.

      From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."

      Now that I can dig.

      Except the concept that, say, illegal immigrants have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Kinda seems like that would just be asking for a foreign body to ship a bunch of troops to Mexico, have them sneak 'cross the border, arm up once they get here, and take over from the inside.

      Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

      In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.

      For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.

      If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men.

      Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies, except the one at the top of this post. Argue your point, but don't try to denigrate opinions that don't march in lock-step with your own by making vague and false accusations. Otherwise you've already lost the debate.

      The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

      Yes; and per the original intent, the only people with a right to vote were land-owning white males. No surprise, then, that they would limit certain other rights to certain subgroups of the population.

      This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".

      OK, first you say that my reasoning was obtus

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:What exact laws were broken? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't think that's even right, the US ratified the international covenant on human rights which is the legal implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 states:

      "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

      Now I don't know what procedures the US has in place for dealing with breaches of these provisions, but certainly if nothing else the US has agreed to bind itself legally by these articles as a result of it's ratification of the respective covenants. The issue seems to arise from the fact that breaches aren't enforced however, so is it a problem of enforcement? although the constitution says "You can't do this" does it specify at all what should happen if you do do whatever it is the constitution says not to? How does the constitution cater for enforcement?

      Either way, legally they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, how that's enforced is a different question.

    26. Re:What exact laws were broken? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.

      Obviously, there are alleged experts that testify towards all kinds of illogical things when the price is right. Liberal leaning professors are not "new" in Universities or the market place. If you can't understand the language being pointed out to you, that's your issue to resolve. Quixley has a nice book about exactly that type of manipulation, as does Gary Allen, Mark Dice, Stefan Molynoux, and countless others. If you don't look for bias you will never see it. Here is your chance to learn.

      I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.

      The evidence is blatantly obvious. "People" existed before the United States of America, "People" wrote and ratified the Constitution before it existed. None of those "People" were necessarily citizens because the country did not exist when the first documents were written. See "Declaration of Independence" for a start but numerous other similar documents record the same exact verbiage.

      As stated previously, and the logical questions should be, "Why would they use specific language in one section and not in the other?" and "Why would a word used in one section or document differ from it's use in another?" They were written by the same people for the same purpose, which was founding a new Country.

      Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies

      I don't believe it's uncalled for. People often cite the definition of voting, which was biased, to distract from the question of what "We the People" is supposed to mean, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for distractions. Those voting biases surely exist in the document but don't pertain to the question of "what does People mean in the founding documents?".

      If it was just one instance, I probably would not have mentioned it. That statement was followed by several other questionable statements and you finished with a false statement. For that reason it appears to be written for the sole purpose of giving a red herring. If that was not your intent, try staying within the question of language or perhaps be more clear on how it relates to what you are trying to claim in regards to the term "People". In fact read that whole amendment again, because the language is extremely clear.

      The Ben Franklin example I gave was to the purpose of showing the definition of the term and it's application. There is historical significance to this if you study of Ben Franklin and his diplomatic visits to France.

      For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.

      As with your other voting rights comment this is simply a biased red herring made to distract. It has no historical merit beyond your imagination, and 5 seconds contemplation should tell you how idiotic this statement is, if you study any history that is. For example there was a large number of the founders did not believe in slavery and it was a highly debated issue. The primary reason to include it in the voting rights portion of the Constitution was for finances and appeas

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    27. Re:What exact laws were broken? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      To be a crime it needs to be, you know, a crime--assault, harassment, theft of assets, etc.

      It's a good thing for your argument that wiretapping isn't a crime, then. The fact is, without the law allowing it, arrest is kidnapping (and usually assault), taking people's property is theft, and some kind of searches are basically sexual assaults. When any of those things are done outside the defined areas that allow authorities to do them, they should fall back to their default position of crimes. It's frankly deplorable that anyone could engage in practices like beating people with clubs, choking them, applying electic shocks to them, etc. without a legal cause, but with the only option of the victims being a civil suit, but it happens all the time.

    28. Re:What exact laws were broken? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I believe in many cases the NSA outright paid off companies to do their bidding (RSA at the very least). But hopefully now, seeing the flee of business away from the US, they should know to care about customer data more.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
  5. Not an employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correction, Snowden was not an employee of the NSA, Snowden was a contractor.

    And yes, there is a huge difference.

    1. Re:Not an employee by mspohr · · Score: 1

      One of the important implications of him being a contractor and not an employee is that the Federal "whistleblower" protections (such as they are) do not apply to him.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  6. Modern Goosestepping and Appeasement by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Few people ever really think about how they would have acted if they were German citizens around the 1930s. Most people would do nothing but move with the crowd and many would get caught up in the propaganda.

    Few resisted or ran away, because it was easier to fall in line. Same situation today. The parallels exist for those who can think about it without being too influenced by the herd. We are encouraged to vilify the people who oppose the authority and to dogmatically (and thoughtlessly) adhere to authority. Orwell said it, in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. We are at that point, most people can see that both parties are functionally dead and it's all one big scam - with the people pointing it out being marginalized and the people making REAL impact are treated as insurgents (because truth alone is not enough in the information overload age, it has to have bite to get noticed.)

    Godwin's law is for simpletons and Nazi sympathizers; prohibiting learning from history more than it stops the ignorant name calling rants (while true that the trolls seem hopeless to educate should we give up all chances to apply history because of them?)

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    1. Re:Modern Goosestepping and Appeasement by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      most people can see that both parties are functionally dead and it's all one big scam

      Most people are ignorant and unintelligent, so I doubt they have even figured out this much. Of course, even if they did, all they're doing is continually voting for evil.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:Modern Goosestepping and Appeasement by dot_bull · · Score: 1

      "Orwell said it, in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." No source for this alleged quote can be cited. Your overall comments are good, I am not faulting your commentary theme in any way. But the quote cannot be verified as having been said by Orwell, or anyone, by anyone.

    3. Re:Modern Goosestepping and Appeasement by davecb · · Score: 1
      The quote was initially attributed to Orwell, but it was not in his published writings. See http://quoteinvestigator.com/2... which identified the first usage as

      1982, Partners in Ecocide: Australia’s Complicity in the Uranium Cartel by V. G. Venturini (Venturino Giorgio Venturini), (Epigraph facing the title page), Rigmarole Book Publishers, Clifton Hill, Australia. (Verified with scans; thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system)

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  7. Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy's afflicted with the "good government" syndrome. His country can do no wrong. Love it or leave it. Just like a good little Nazi.

  8. Snowden's an expert? by asylumx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait a second, what on earth is he speaking at SXSW for? Is he now considered an expert on national security? Typical sysadmin, thinking they know everything about how you should do your job, even if your job has nothing to do with administering systems.

    1. Re:Snowden's an expert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's speaking up for the same reasons he spoke up in the first place.

      Because no one else will.

      Which is how we got to where we are.

    2. Re:Snowden's an expert? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And yet he seems to know more about what will happen as a result than the heads of the CIA and NSA, who appear to be raving lunatics.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:Snowden's an expert? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah, anyone who can take on the US Government and win is by definition an expert in national security. By now he probably also read more documents on national security than even the most highly cleared guys. He had everything from the minutiae of NSA tech to reports written for the inspector general. Given the rampant lying that occurs inside the security state he's probably the only guy with any clarity on how things really work at all, especially because judging from previous behaviour around the Wikileaks incidents, a lot of the NSA/DoD guys will have refused to read any of the public reports in case they get "contaminated" by classified materials!

    4. Re:Snowden's an expert? by neiras · · Score: 1

      Typical sysadmin, thinking they know everything about how you should do your job, even if your job has nothing to do with administering systems.

      If Snowden really were a "typical sysadmin", we'd all be better off.

    5. Re:Snowden's an expert? by FriendlyStatistician · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is bliss?

    6. Re:Snowden's an expert? by neiras · · Score: 1

      No. If more people disregarded rules, regulations and laws that do damage to free society as Snowden did, we would all be better off.

      I'd say Snowden has reached one of the post-conventional levels on the Kohlberg scale.

    7. Re:Snowden's an expert? by FriendlyStatistician · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it. You're saying if the typical sysadmin was more like Snowden; I read it as saying if Snowden had been different (i.e. if he had not leaked the documents).

    8. Re:Snowden's an expert? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Wait a second, what on earth is he speaking at SXSW for? Is he now considered an expert on national security?

      I don't know about national security, but he's shown himself time and again to be a very astute observer. It's the same with Bruce Schneier, he doesn't have a PhD in cryptography but people still listen to him because he's damn good at picking out the relevant bits and communicating them effectively to the masses.

  9. better call saul by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    From the screenshot I saw it looked like he was getting legal advice from Saul Goodman.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  10. Rearranging deck chairs on RMS Titanic by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google, Twitter and Facebook adding SSL is useless in face of third party doctrine effectively declaring you have no right to any privacy (e.g. "tangible thing") online even in communications between individuals.

    We need viable alternatives to massive centralized systems controlled by a handful of multi-billion dollar media and advertising companies.

    On state attacking the way I see it more attacks from all parties the more pressure on all to deploy secure systems... this is ultimately in everyone's best interests. Closer the day when cost for a systems exploit approaches infinity where only viable attacks are physical force, social engineering and coercion the better for all.

    Low intensity "cyber war" is better than complacency yielding brittle systems contributing to some cheese laden Hollywood doomsday plot line.

    1. Re:Rearranging deck chairs on RMS Titanic by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Websites use of SSL make tracking easier. SSL does nothing to prevent google from tracking all your website searches. SSL does nothing to prevent your employer from monitoring all of your external internet access. What SSL does is make google's tracking easier because it helps them identify who you are.

    2. Re:Rearranging deck chairs on RMS Titanic by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Google, Twitter and Facebook adding SSL is useless in face of third party doctrine...

      It's useful in that it forces agencies that want the data to at least request (or demand) it directly, rather than obtaining it without anyone else knowing and without oversight. It's useful in that improvements to that oversight consequently affect their access to data. It's useful in that parties that are less friendly to you than the NSA and that have no legal power against Google, Twitter, and Facebook are stymied.

  11. Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor by Cenan · · Score: 2

    It's completely telling the the only people that love Snowden are people that deal with computers all day.

    Only people? You don't get out much do you?

    Why would they have a classified system with filters in the first place if privacy wasn't a concern?

    Why not? It's obviously no hindrance to operations. You could have armies of robotic bunnies singing the national anthem all day long, it would have the same impact.

    Remember, the NSA does serve a defense purpose. There actually are dangerous elements in the world, with Russia being the obvious latest example.

    Yeah, I'm sure Mrs. Jackson's grocery list is of utmost importance when unraveling the latest Russian plot. Not like the resources to plow through all that data could have been spent much smarter, they're endless and unsupervised after all. And while sifting through all that useless data, your friends over at Fort Meade got caught with their pants down, yet again. And not just a little tug that shows the top of their tighty whities, no, a complete drop to the ankles and off the one foot.

    blah, blah blah blah

    Yeah, I stopped reading, your opinion is after all insignificant and irrelevant in the grand socialist scheme of things.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  12. Re:Mod parent down! by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    Me? Nothing. Why?
    That giant whooshing sound is you not getting what is implied in my italicized question.

  13. secure email by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    Even though we all know that all of our email is being read... email client support for encryption in many cases is still bad or non-existent.

  14. Unlimited Asylum by qpqp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and won't send him back home.

    (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/ - of all sources...)

  15. no expertise needed @ SXSW by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    SXSW is a tradeshow & alot of the "keynote" speaking slots are for sale. It's a revenue stream for SXSW: keynotes get alot of press for their product therefore there is value to trade. Not that Snowden would have to pay to be a "keynote" speaker but it's possible.

    To go another level, I don't trust anything about the Snowden Narrative from the ***very beginning*** It's fishy as hell, from the Russian poled-dancing girlfriend to his repeated wearing of the same two shirts...on the face of it the whole thing was backwards.

    Typical sysadmin, thinking they know everything about how you should do your job, even if your job has nothing to do with administering systems.

    Yes. This is a fact that alot of fanbois want to ignore. We all may be happy about the increased awareness of gov't spying, but that doesn't mean we turn off our brains entirely.

    IMHO Snowden was/is being blackmailed. He may have had nothing but good intentions but it's obvious that he's getting worked.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:no expertise needed @ SXSW by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      SXSW is a tradeshow & alot of the "keynote" speaking slots are for sale. It's a revenue stream for SXSW: keynotes get alot of press for their product therefore there is value to trade. Not that Snowden would have to pay to be a "keynote" speaker but it's possible.

      To go another level, I don't trust anything about the Snowden Narrative from the ***very beginning*** It's fishy as hell, from the Russian poled-dancing girlfriend to his repeated wearing of the same two shirts...on the face of it the whole thing was backwards.

      Typical sysadmin, thinking they know everything about how you should do your job, even if your job has nothing to do with administering systems.

      Yes. This is a fact that alot of fanbois want to ignore. We all may be happy about the increased awareness of gov't spying, but that doesn't mean we turn off our brains entirely.

      IMHO Snowden was/is being blackmailed. He may have had nothing but good intentions but it's obvious that he's getting worked.

      I tend to agree. But he is also attempting to blackmail the US by holding on to a trove of data as a poison pill. Is this data secure? He thinks it is secure but foreign govts probably have already stole it or bought it. Patriots don't risk endanger national security as as shield for personal protection.

      I know I know mod me down now /.

    2. Re:no expertise needed @ SXSW by asylumx · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see a couple of people at slashdot who are still willing to think critically instead of just jumping on the bandwagon. Thank you.

  16. Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ultimately, nothing within the NSA leaks actually show any abuse of power.

    Right, like looking at non-criminal targets' sexually explicit webcam photos.

  17. Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks for your opinion, government drone. People like you are the real traitors because you don't want others to have opinions that are different from yours/the hive mind. You are anti-freedom.

  18. Snowden revealed metadata about NSA by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Metadata about you is unimportant and can be obtained by an NSA/FBI/DEA/police/dog-catcher letter saying "please".

    Metadata about the NSA is CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY NOFORN BURN-BEFORE-READING SOURCES AND METHODS that COULD TELL TERRORISTS HOW TO KILL YOUR MAMA and needs to be protected from anybody untrusted, like you, or journalists, or the American public, or the Congresscritters that set their budget.

    It's really not that hard, citizen!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  19. Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

    Members of any organization need to be responsible for the actions of that organization and the role they play allowing that to happen, regardless of how small that role may be. The opposite of this is called "corruption."