NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure

AHuxley (892839) writes "The Desk reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden" and the NSA's refusal to release all documents. "The National Security Agency has acknowledged it retains a record of e-mail communications from former contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden, but says those records are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act. In a letter responding to a June 27 FOIA request from The Desk, the NSA’s chief FOIA officer Pamela Phillips wrote that while the agency has retained records related to Snowden’s employment as a contractor, they are being withheld from public examination because, among other things, releasing the records 'could interfere with law enforcement proceedings, could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reveal the identities of confidential sources or would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures.' Other records are being withheld because those documents were 'also found to be currently and properly classifiedand remains classified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL.' The letter marks the first time the NSA has publicly acknowledged retaining communication and employment records related to Snowden’s time as a contractor."

Comments

"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[jeIIomizer]

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[xfizik]

I don't think they care about violating rights of the U.S. citizens. And they care even less about those outside the U.S. It's too bad that the American allies don't care about their citizens' privacy either.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No need to tell them, they saw that, too.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[DoofusOfDeath]

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -Aesop.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

The governments of America's allies probably care about their citizens being killed in attacks as has happened before:

Madrid train attacks
Bali death toll set at 202
7 July London attacks

And attempts to repeat that sort of thing continue:

09 Jul 2014 - Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

Indeed it is. That's why government's shouldn't engage in mass murder.

Oh, wait. You're trying to say we should sacrifice freedom and the constitution to stop entities unrelated to the government of the country where people are being killed to stop people from being killed. I expect our government to be better than mere criminals or terrorists, which is why I will not condone sacrificing freedom and the constitution for safety.

As usual, I'm going to recommend you move to North Korea.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[SeaFox]

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

Irony: Only by becoming a terrorist by the government's standards does one gain acknowledgement of their right to privacy from it.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

You've gone off the rails. Freedom and the Constitution aren't being sacrificed. If you really think so, please describe how.

As usual you stoop to nonsense.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Noah Haders]

09 Jul 2014 - Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police

Mass murder is one of the worst deprivations of rights.

except that most "rights" only apply to government actions, not private party actions.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Charliemopps]

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

Don't even make an argument. They are liars, and criminals. Why are we even listing to them talk? To hell with the NSA, they can talk in court.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

It has already been explained to you in dozens articles how the NSA's activities violate the spirit of the constitution and how they violates people's privacy. You just hand wave it all away and appeal to the authority of judges, completely ignoring the intent of the founders (the courts are not the be-all end-all of the constitution) and ignoring the fact that the courts can be wrong.

Numerous people have debunked your garbage time and time again. What's the point? The only point in responding to you is to let other people know using logic against you is pointless, because you're an authoritarian to the core.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

So you are suggesting that mass murder doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as it is done by terrorists, and not the government?

Terrorist mass murder = no harm, not foul, from a civil rights perspective? You might not have that correct.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy? (Without resorting to the "penumbras" the judges relied upon.)

It isn't so much that I have been debunked as mod bombed. It isn't that I'm an authoritarian, it is that you misunderstand the Constitution, the law, and the views of the Founders. You are apparently a part of the "Americans must die bravely from terrorist bombings in shopping malls or we aren't free" crowd. Like many on Slashdot you probably confuse liberty with license, a topic you should probably look into as it was understood by the Founders.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you want to limit this to the intent of the Founders, could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy?

If the constitution does not say that the government has the power to do something, then it doesn't. Furthermore, the 4th amendment places limitations upon the government that may have been necessary due to earlier sections of the constitution. The limitations placed on the government's powers enable a greater degree of privacy to exist. The right to privacy is the default, and it is also implicit.

General warrants are unconstitutional. Further, it's plainly obvious that this practice would have been explicitly forbidden had it been used against the founders, similar to how practices were. There's no way this *is not* unconstitutional in a place that's often called "the land of the free." You disagree with me because, deep in your heart, you'd rather be living in North Korea. Why not just admit it and try to move there?

You are apparently a part of the "Americans must die bravely from terrorist bombings in shopping malls or we aren't free" crowd.

A more accurate phrasing of that would be, "Americans, between risking death and losing fundamental freedoms, should do the former." You disagree. You are an authoritarian scumbag. Why not just admit what everyone already knows?

Like many on Slashdot you probably confuse liberty with license

Like all of your kind, you confuse license with liberty.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to hide , nothing to fear!

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Noah Haders]

in the US, people's rights are generally specific to government interferenceor actions. frinstance govt can't curtail freedom of speech, but private entities are free to do so on their properties, radio waves, etc.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly most of Slashdot has gone off the rails. There are very few users left who aren't completely deranged by their hatred of the United States government, and paranoid delusions about oppression. At this point Slashdot as a whole needs psychological help. Let's just hope that none of these drooling idiots kills a cop in their attempt to start their fantasy revolution like this couple. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting-couple/

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you're not an authoritarian. You're dealing with people who have lost their minds, and are posting their paranoid delusions to the Internet while smarter, better adjusted people are out having fun with their friends and families. As long as you don't get modded to 0, the idiots with mod points will be reversed when normal people show up.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[jeIIomizer]

The NSA is, at this very moment, violating the constitution and people's rights by conducting mass surveillance on almost everyone. In what way is pointing this out and saying it is a bad thing in any way silly?

We're supposed to be 'the land of the free.' Our constitution only gives the government limited powers. Why is that? Because governments can't be trusted, and authority will be abused. We have to be cautious of the powers the government actually does have, let alone the ones that it just takes for itself. Distrust of government is a very important principle of this country, and it's also completely rational considering the hundreds of millions of people abused and/or killed by governments throughout history. I have to point this out so many times because you people are ignorant and believe the government is full of perfect little angels who could never abuse their powers or make mistakes, which ignores history entirely.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

Civil rights prosecutions or lawsuits often take place against private individuals or organizations.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are suggesting that mass murder doesn't violate anyone's rights as long as it is done by terrorists, and not the government?

Terrorist mass murder = no harm, not foul, from a civil rights perspective? You might not have that correct.

Murder and mass murder is already covered by the law. You don't need secret courts or specific provisions to be able to label someone as a terrorist to deal with that.
If you can show that someone intends to commit mass murder, just take them to court and trow them in jail.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[TheRealHocusLocus]

And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.

That is because blah blah blah NO blah blah NATIONAL SECURITY blah blah SHUT THE HELL UP.

Thar be dragins.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

You seem to "know" a lot of things that aren't true.

The gathering of phone metadata by NSA may be disagreeable, but it isn't a "general warrant." Since a court is supervising it and Congress has authorized it, you seem to be on weak ground as to what is constitutional. I disagree with you since you are making a variety of fundamental errors, including the suggestion that I would rather be living in North Korea.

I'm still waiting for this list of "fundamental freedoms" that have been lost.

You should look into the history of privacy in the Constitution. It is just one more thing you don't have a good handle on.

The Right of Privacy

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass murder deprives people of the right of life.

Living in "1984" deprives them of the rights of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Because once you've put authoritarian limits, either legally or merely as "chilling effects" on what people can do, you've alienated their fundamental rights.

Some people, about 225 years ago thought that those secondary rights were so important that they were willing to sacrifice their rights to live to protect those "lesser" rights.

But you are a coward, who'd gladly live in a shoebox if it kept you "safe". And worse, you don't care if that means everyone else has to live in a shoebox as well.

You can say that I am a (anonymous) coward, and you'll be correct. Not everyone who spoke up for Liberty in 1776 was brave enough to stand out in the open and play target.

Besides, when your goons come after me, I intend to make them have to work to find me.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[0123456]

Here's an idea.

Imagine you go back in time, and you ask Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and friends whether it would be OK if the government was keeping a record of who sent every letter and who they sent it to. Just to protect us, obviously.

Just imagine that for a moment.

Then tell us, with all seriousness, that you really, actually, imagine they would say 'yeah, sure, that's fine, and totally Constitutinal'.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

The gathering of phone metadata by NSA may be disagreeable, but it isn't a "general warrant."

I did not say it *was* a general warrant. I brought it up because it's similar in concept. They're scooping up tons of data.

Since a court is supervising it and Congress has authorized it, you seem to be on weak ground as to what is constitutional.

A court that rubberstamps warrants and court orders. That the court does so, and that congress authorizes this unconstitutional behavior, does not mean it's constitutional.

As predicted, you appeal to authority and refuse to admit that authority can be wrong, despise the countless examples throughout history of authority being wrong, even the authority figures in the US.

I'm still waiting for this list of "fundamental freedoms" that have been lost.

Such as privacy. It also introduces a number of chilling effects on other rights such as free speech and freedom of association.

You should look into the history of privacy in the Constitution. It is just one more thing you don't have a good handle on.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. Once again, privacy is established by the limitations we place upon our government. It's the default (since the government can only legitimately do what the constitution says it can), and also implicit in areas such as the fourth amendment.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

Just to protect us, obviously.

Obviously.

Now can you pretend that George Washington was a spymaster that ran a spy ring that spied on both the British and other colonists, and that Benjamin Franklin opened the mail of other colonists for intelligence purposes to aid the war effort? Well, you don't have to pretend, they actually did it.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[rtb61]

You seem to have forgotten that the NSA were doing a damn sight more than just gathering phone metadata. That's the only thing the US government is willing to discuss with a US agency even when the head of that agency perjured himself to the US government in a public hearing under oath. Metadata, metadata, that's now just a pretend catch cry to make it look like the government is doing something about an out of control agency.

They were intercepting everything thing they could, internet communications, email, cell phone calls, land line calls, hacking computer networks, purposefully weakening internet securing to keep the hacking easy, disrupting encryption methods and basically trying to get all the electronic data they could get on everyone . They specifically targeted US politicians and look how well that worked out for them, now it ho hum metadata from US politicians and ignore the perjury, ignore politically targeted wire tapping, pretend it all never happened, now why are they really doing that, what is the NSA keeping secret about the politicians that are meant to control the NSA.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Pseudonym]

Oh, you naïve person, you. Don't you know that your privacy rights aren't violated as long as you never know your personal data was being scraped and stored? It's the disclosure that is the privacy violation.

Besides, the data is only "collected" when someone looks at it. It's basically Schrödinger's database.

Re: "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Abolitionists in the late 1700s and early 1800s were already arguing that Due Process (as written in the 5th Amendment and other state constitutions) made slavery illegal. Those very same abolitionists added the same clause to the 14th Amendment.

Substantive Due Process has a looooonnnggg history, particularly in America. People who deride it are Ignorant of American legal history, particularly the cynical law professors who recite the same tired refrains.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[cold fjord]

Quoting the news is trolling? I think somebody doesn't understand moderation.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I am for all of this. But times have changed. Asking Jefferson is not really a good argument.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[fnj]

could you quote the section of the US Constitution that establishes the right to privacy?

OK, this ring a bell? 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.

That's the fourth amendment, in case you are at a loss.

It's kinda hard to have any privacy when jackbooted thugs can just bust in and rifle through your effects on a whim, no?

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[flyneye]

"NSA Says Snowden Emails Exempt From Public Disclosure "
NSA says a lot of shit and you can't believe a fucking word of it, but, then, you can't believe a fucking word the Politicians, that make the NSA possible, say either.
Go figure.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[jeIIomizer]

How is that not a good argument? Imagining what the founding fathers would have done in response to X, and taking into account some history and similar events, is a very good way to try to get a grasp on the spirit of the constitution. What do you suggest, ignoring the spirit of the constitution and just letting the government do as it pleases because "times have changed"? What does that even mean?

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[GlennC]

Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since there is no "Right to Privacy" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since, to my knowledge, no State has prohibited privacy, nor has there been a Constitutional Amendment denying a citizen's right to privacy, the right to privacy most certainly exists.

Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[ganjadude]

you bring up meta data, which you can hide behind the courts ruling that meta data is not data, i would argue otherwise but ill give you that for now

what about the new information that they are recording some 80% of voice calls??? that IS data, not meta data, that is illegally wiretapping because that WOULD be considered a general warrant.

You say a lot of things that unlike others here I agree with, but your boner for the NSA makes me shake my head. Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to "know" a lot of things that aren't true.

Funny, I work with three con law profs who disagree with you. And yes, they've actually practiced.

From which tier-4 shithole did *you* graduate?

Oh yes, you probably don't have a JD.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that the NSA is still afraid. Out in force with the shills for another Snowden story detailing their incompetence. Shit, you fuckers couldn't even get being a secret agency right.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[david_thornley]

At the risk of getting either philosophical or quantum mechanical, when is a recording an invasion of privacy? Listening to phone conversations, or otherwise analyzing them, is obviously illegal without a warrant. Is storing them where nobody will be able to listen to them a violation? If not, what sort of safeguards are necessary? I'd say that listening to recorded phone calls with a warrant doesn't look different to me from listening to them live.

Re:"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"

[jeIIomizer]

Is storing them where nobody will be able to listen to them a violation?

Yes.

Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume that Snowden has his own copies of the emails in question. Couldn't he release those himself?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's already released a few, didn't he? The result was NSA-apologists calling him a liar and saying he made it all up.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[jopsen]

Yeah, this smells like NSA trying to hide that Snowden did in fact try to bring up the issue through official channels, before he leaked documents to the public.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels? Now I wonder why that might be?

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

Yeah, this smells like NSA trying to hide that Snowden did in fact try to bring up the issue through official channels, before he leaked documents to the public.

When will Snowden leak his emails? He's already leaked the documents on the programs he supposedly complained about.

How did he not manage to get his emails when he stole 1.7 million documents?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe off topic but how many freedom of information requests that are granted end up full of redacted statements, names, places, ect?

So while you have a legit point, I seriously doubt the NSA's higher ups weren't the only ones he complained to. And even if he did they could still release the e-mails and redact any if not the entire email, other then commons wording or sentences you'd find in an e-mail. I loved the "law enforcement" excuse, most people know it when comes to "muslim" terrorists, or traitors, law enforcement is at no point involved, its all secret courts and prisons.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I presume that Snowden has his own copies of the emails in question.

I would not expect him too. The idea that he would get in a public "he-said, she-said" pissing match with the NSA probably never occurred to him before he left. His goal was to release proof of the NSA's wrong-doing, not provide a paper-trail of his own actions.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't make sense to release those himself. The USG would say they were fake and say they have no record of those emails. It's best for the USG to release them to prove his case. The fact that they keep lying about the emails works toward Snowden's favor.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

Nice try.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the impression I get, and his association with the anti-American blogger Glenn Greenwald, who writes misleading articles and often behaves like a child on Twitter, does not lend to his credibility. I used to be a Greenwald fan, but I've seen enough of what he is to be embarrassed to ever have supported him.

The NSA says that none of these undisclosed emails have to do with Snowden raising concerns, and since Snowden doesn't seem to have been able to keep copies of his own emails as he stole all those documents, it makes me think he's a liar in addition to being a thief.

Add to that the fact that Snowden was covered by the Whistleblowers act, and instead ran to Russia, and this whole thing stinks of anti-American propaganda. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43590_Was_Edward_Snowden_Covered_by_the_IC_Whistleblowers_Act_Yes_He_Was.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boot lickers like yourself would just claim he made them up afterwards to put himself in a better light.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of very few people on Slashdot that hasn't lost their mind Fjord. The paranoid delusions here are as bad as those in the comments at any wingnut site. It's sad to watch people who think they're smart be this stupid.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He already said why. He didn't take anything with him beyond Hong Kong and there is no reason tothink he could have had the foresight to take the emails at the time he took the other documents. The fact we're attacking him over what is trivial compared to the crimes he's brought us should send up a red flag. They are distracting us and the administration, prior administration, and at least some of those in congress amongst others should be charged with treason and in prison. Unfortunately our system doesn't work in such a way that true justice can be realized. Those accused tend to be those who are the enemy of the state (people in power) or simply being taken advantage of for poitical gain (Aaron Swartz, Bernie S, etc).

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

Yes, Genn is a very busy man.

Glenn Greenwald enraged that Muslims with terror ties under surveillance

Re:Snowden's copies?

[vux984]

Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels?

a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.

b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?

The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.

If you really beleive what you wrote, why do think the NSA is refusing to release them?

And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

a) Because when I suspect my employer of illegal wrong doing doing I always write an email? Oh, wait, no, we're trained that those sorts of inquiries are supposed to go through channels without permanent records for legal liability reasons. You can argue that that's a bad thing, but that's reality in a LOT of places.

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

b) While I'm sure he'd have been capable of snagging his email, maybe it simply didn't occur to him.

And yet it occurred to him to steal documents on intelligence operations by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Sweden, and other places? All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.

If your argument is that Snowden didn't keep and release them because they would contradict and harm his 'narrative', then why is the NSA not bending over backwards to get them out there?

Maybe because they don't exist? Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?

The NSA should be happy to provide us with such a relevant record that details their dutiful adherence to the law, and how they conscientiously explained to Snowden why he was mistaken in raising concerns.

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

And if you really believe what what the NSA was doing was legal, how do you reconcile that with the general consensus that a great deal of what they were doing was not, in fact, legal.

Which "general consensus" is that? The one on Slashdot? Do you really need me to answer that for you?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, but it is odd that you continue to post on Slashdot with the apparent belief that everyone doesn't already know what an NSA apologist douchebag you are.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any guesses on the likelihood that Cold Fjord just followed up his own post with an AC one? I'd give it about 100%.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

Except the NSA just released one of Snowden's emails questioning the legality of things one or two months ago. They then claimed that was the "only" email they had from him. Now they are saying they have lots but can't release them for some reason. So, the NSA has been caught lying to you yet again and you continue to look the other way. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be MY take on that.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[vux984]

Snowden said he wrote emails that he can't produce despite taking almost two million documents. You can't explain that away since you are directly challenging him.

Ok, I'll stipulate that he claims he wrote them.

All this while intending to make the claim that he was a "whistle blower" on the US? And he forget the whistle he claims to have blown, repeatedly, while there? That doesn't wash.

I honestly and sincerely don't even see it as related. He may not even anticipated that someone would challenge. He was seeking to establish beyond credible doubt that the NSA was doing XYZ. That is "the story" he was looking to tell. That someone would try to argue that a big part of the story would be "hey, can you prove you tried to tell someone inside, first" possibly didn't even enter into his mind.

In the big picture, it doesn't even matter. What matters is what the NSA was doing, not how vigorously Snowden tried to change it from within first.

Regardless of how important this particular detail is to you, its at best a tangential detail to the main story.

Its just a small minded distraction to try and divert attention from the main story. Like obsessing over Julian Assange's significant personal flaws instead of focusing on the actual wiki leaks leaks.

Maybe because they don't exist?

That doesn't fly within this thread of the sub-argument.

You'd stipulated they DID exist and contained the NSA's response that they were legal. You can't now argue that maybe they didn't exist, at least not within this sub-thread.

Or they discuss classified programs that are still classified?

They could redact them. Even if they were just "walls of black ink", they would establish that they existed.

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

You are contorting like an acrobat. You are arguing that "if they exist, the NSA is rightfully keeping them secret, therefore we should assume Snowden is lying about their existence, and that they don't exist". That's not even coherent.

Seems to me then, its perfectly reasonable to accept Snowden's claim they exist.

Which "general consensus" is that?

Lets see:
the 5 member Privacy and Civil liberties Oversight Board created by Congress ruled them illegal.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled them illegal.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled them illegal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...

http://www.wired.com/2013/12/b...

And even the NSA itself, has ADMITTED substantial wrongdoing.

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

"The one on Slashdot?"

Yeah, sure, the one on slashdot too. ::eyeroll::

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

So you don't have an argument? Just call names? Typical.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

And you'd be wrong. Pay up. (Donate to charity of your choice.)

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why would I bother arguing with someone who insists that the moon is made of cheese?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[cold fjord]

Let's look at what I wrote:

Isn't it ... "odd" ... that Snowden could manage to steal 1.7 million documents, but apparently didn't manage to get copies of his own emails showing his alleged attempts to raise the issues through official channels? Now I wonder why that might be?

You don't think it could be because even if he did "raise the issue" of legality he was given the reasons why they were legal and chose to steal the documents anyway?

No moon or cheese there, and you have no answer for it, hence the name calling by you. Ta ta.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmm ... that's what I thought the instant I read the article.

As he said, Snowden tried to bring his concerns to someone's attention, it was ignored, or like so much else at the NSA fell into a hole somewhere where it was never found, and then he acted.

Who knows ... maybe the information that would have prevented 9/11, and pointed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq, and diclosed heaps of other NSA intelligence failures is in the same hole. Maybe when they do find, they will find all that other useful information (as opposed to the 'noise' they process now), and the may become a useful intelligence agency.

Nah ... It'll never happen. The NSA is just a black hole for money and resources - that's about the sum of it.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a deal. Help us take stop NSA from committing more crimes and make sure that everyone responsible is tried in court and we'll help you make sure that Snowden gets tried fairly after that?
After all, NSA is the more pressing issue.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The person you're arguing with does not think the moon is made of cheese, Derp Kelvin. He simply has not gone insane like you have. Can you really not see that you're a complete lunatic who calls for the death of children simply because their parents don't share your mental illness? You're a monster who pretends that good people are a problem

You're just as far gone as the typical Conservative turned hate-fueled wingnut from Republican fake news, hate radio, and the wingnut blogs. The echo chamber here has made your hate and extremism seem acceptable to you, when you're actually one of the most far gone inmates in the Slashdot mental asylum.
 
The NSA has broken the law and needs to be reined in, but you're such a psycho you want revolution and death
 
Seek professional help before you hurt someone.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of /. has gone pretty nuts, but you're having a conversation with one of the craziest of the crazies. I'm sure that's pretty frustrating, and maybe not the best use of your time, but I'm glad someone is pushing back against the derp that so many clueless, reactionary people here have fallen for.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haters like you will hate.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, actually, that's the best way to send evidence to the IG. In fact, given that the evidence is all digital, well, yeah, he's full of shit and a traitor at best, but probably a pathological liar.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

talking to yourself, even on a forum post is not generally a sign of not having lost your mind I'm afraid

Re:Snowden's copies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh - the only forum that all of this should be discussed is between all of the treasonous traitors sitting on the East coast, and the people who grant these assholes temporary power.

Without us, the 400+ million Americans, the less than 500 Americans who run the country's government have absolutely no power, no authority, and the people they empowered have even less than those we've empowered.

All we, as Americans, have to do is revoke that power and their little empire falls to the ground.

Vote out every incumbent in office, then next election, do it again, and again and again, never let another person have more than one round in any office.

Debench the SCotUS Judges that illegally kept rulings and decisions hidden from us, the people who rule them.

Impeach Obama, arrest him and Bush both, try them for treason. While we're at it, arrest the entire house of Congress, the Senate, the Attorney's General staff, FBI, CIA, NSA and any other alphabet soup government agency employees, and put them all on trial for treason as the traitorous scum they are.

9/11 did nothing to change the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Illegal activities perpetrated by these wanton criminals need to be brought to justice.

Since the government likes to claim that we are at war with terrorists, I'm okay with that - that means that there's only one punishment for treason, and they all get it.

It would be neat to see Washington D.C. corruption free for however short a time period it would last.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[philip.paradis]

Owing to my prior service in uniform and long standing experience in both private and public sector information security, I have a very good idea of why he isn't in possession of those emails. I'm fairly certain you have the same understanding, but you've elected to take the disingenuous route of raising this rather ridiculous question, being secure in your belief the populace at large doesn't have the same benefit of experience. I'll ask the same question I asked you in my last reply: what do you presently do for a living, and what have you done in the past?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[philip.paradis]

To be perfectly clear, Snowden is actually in possession of some emails. That much has been known for some time. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I speak to the probability that he is in possession of copies of all his correspondence (extremely low), especially copies which could be authenticated via certain means. Again, you know exactly what I'm talking about here, and you're simply being disingenuous.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[gmhowell]

Are you just as histrionic over Lois Lerner's missing emails?

Re:Snowden's copies?

[TangoMargarine]

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And the NSA has amply demonstrated this fact to most everyone but coldfjord's satisfaction.

Re:Snowden's copies?

[AntiSol]

I expect that the NSA has done that in the proper forums for discussing classified matters: in meetings with the administration, in closed sessions of Congress, and before the courts in closed hearings.

There's your problem right there: you expect people who are demonstrably untrustworthy to do the right thing.

It's time for a revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

LET'S DO THIS!!!

Re:It's time for a revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting that as AC kind of took the umph out of it...

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise how could they keep justifying their argument of "he should have used the internal means of reporting the wrongdoings".

techniques and procedures

[Anonymous Coward]

"would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures" aka lying.

Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

Snowden / Binney 2016!

That image is my original artwork (with friendly tips from Slashdot user Indigo), copyright 2014 Robert Bushman, licensed under CC by-nc-sa. It is properly sized for a 2.75" by 5" sticker with .125" bleed at 300 dpi. I'm getting them printed at psprint.com (I recommend doing a search for "vinyl bumper stickers", since they often have a coupon running on Duck Duck Go). I haven't seen my physical proofs yet, but the on-screen color conversion looked good to me. Please feel free to print a stack and spread them far and wide.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Collective 0-0009]

Looks like ".Snowden" at first glance. Reduce the space between the i and the dot.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

Looks like ".Snowden" at first glance. Reduce the space between the i and the dot.

Thanks for the tip. Done. Same url.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Collective 0-0009]

Yeah, I think that helps. Thanks. I will be printing a few.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Snowden is 31 and you must be 35 to meet the candidacy requirement for POTUS.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Noah Haders]

who is binney

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

who is binney

That's a big part of the reason I went with Binney instead of Doctorow (my original choice); to make you, and others like you, wonder, "Who is Binney?" Hopefully most of the rest will realize they can type "binney" into a search engine. :)

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, If only there was a way to find out...

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

who is binney

But, maybe my previous response was too snarky...

Sometimes people say, of Snowden, "He should have gone through official channels."

In 2001, William Binney did exactly that. Ever since then, Binney had been harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and marginalized and ignored by the media -- until Snowden embarrassed the major media with the help of Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian. Binney (and Drake before him) is why Snowden was right not to go through official channels; that method had been tested and found to fail.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Chelloveck]

Sorry, I only support candidates who can provide me with vector-based artwork.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

Sorry, I only support candidates who can provide me with vector-based artwork.

Here you go: LibreOffice Draw format.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[swillden]

Except Snowden is 31 and you must be 35 to meet the candidacy requirement for POTUS.

It also helps to be able to set foot on US soil without being arrested. Not a constitutional requirement, per se, but a fairly important practical one. Otherwise even if you win you have to figure out how to sneak into the country and your own inauguration so you can get sworn in -- and acquire the ability to pardon yourself -- before being body slammed to the ground, thrown into the back of a black Suburban and transported to Gitmo for waterboarding.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

He also didn't go to an Ivy League school, which isn't a constitutional requirement either, but a practical one.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[GNious]

From Wikipedia:

"James Jeffrey Binney, FRS, FInstP (born 1950 in Surrey) is a British astrophysicist. He is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, where he is head of the Sub-Department of Theoretical Physics as well as a Professorial Fellow at Merton College. Binney is known principally for his work in theoretical galactic and extragalactic astrophysics, but he has made a number of contributions to areas outside of astrophysics as well."

Interesting choice, but I'm not sure he is eligible...

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[swillden]

He also didn't go to an Ivy League school, which isn't a constitutional requirement either, but a practical one.

Neither did Reagan. It's easy to find counterexamples.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[TangoMargarine]

You think the President has to be a U.S. citizen but they're not going to care whether the guy who takes over if anything happens to him is?

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[TangoMargarine]

Ah crap. Tripped up by nonobvious Internet sarcasm. Please disregard.

Not James Jeffrey Binney but William Binney I assume.

Re:Snowden / Binney 2016

[Bob9113]

Unrelated server crash. Try this one. I'll have the original URL back up as soon as I get this new box built.

The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

No longer inhabits the constitutional legal framework of its purpose or foundation.

It is an illegal institution, with no basis for either loyalty or obedience.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[DoofusOfDeath]

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[KiloByte]

Are there any Indians left you could mooch from during these two winters?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Who said anything about "revolution"? That just brings you trouble, and causes more harm to innocents.

Just don't lay any special claim by "citizenship" - that is a parlour trick to keep you in harness, to keep you a "house negro".

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Imrik]

Revolution can come in many forms, a widespread change in voter behavior could be described as a revolution.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jane Q. Public]

America no longer has distributed agriculture or fuel production. A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters, I'd wager.

And yet, in Thomas Jefferson's view, would be well worth the cost, and is far more than an order of magnitude (in years) overdue.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[bill_mcgonigle]

A revolution, however warranted, would lead to an unimaginable amount of freezing and starvation within the first two winters

Why, would the failing government interdict traffic? That wouldn't be the revolution causing freezing or starvation.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

The powers that be would never allow that...
We'll make voting illegal so only criminals would want to vote.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[DoofusOfDeath]

I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in a nutjob's view, Thomas Jefferson would support their insane desire to cause mass deaths.

It's sad that you're calling for the destruction of America, and mass starvation of Americans, based on disinformation from scoundrels like Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. You should be ashamed of yourself, but loons like you have no shame.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they care more about their children's survival than about your delusions about the end of freedom. Huge difference, you god damn idiot. Delusional asshats like you are the real problem.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[DoofusOfDeath]

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

You could happily sit in the company of many of history's great men. The too were willing to sacrifice countless lives for some lofty goal.

Is there any benefit too small, in your mind, for my kids to die supporting it?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

Delusional? The NSA is violating people's rights and the highest law of the land, and it's happening right this instant. Are you saying that it is not happening? If not, then how is he delusional? If you allow it to happen, and they continue doing it, then you don't really have those freedoms, now do you?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/27/civil_war_who_would_come_out_on_top_if_the_united_states_all_declared_war.html

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Is there any benefit too small, in your mind, for my kids to die supporting it?"

If they are anything like you, then I'd have to say a definitive no.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[grcumb]

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

You could happily sit in the company of many of history's great men. The too were willing to sacrifice countless lives for some lofty goal.

Is there any benefit too small, in your mind, for my kids to die supporting it?

It's worth noting that most revolutions happen when the only way remaining to provide for and protect one's children is to take up arms or man the barricades.

... And most of them are won by the side most able to protect its children.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

a widespread change in voter behavior

I needed my daily laugh.

It's doubly funny for the implication that they give a shit about "the voters".

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of Slashdot's readers are from India, according to the recent demographics. Why don't you ask them if they'll share a few meals with you?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice that you expose yourself as the murderous monster you are Derp Kelvin. It's a good thing you have no power that extends beyond your mom's basement.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are you doing about it besides telling other people to put their ass on the line? All I see are a bunch of armchair revolutionaries who would shit themselves if things really did get bad. I quite like the phrase "Speak not of revolution until you are ready to eat rats to survive." If you are really down with that, by all means go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when you look back and find yourself standing alone. More likely, I suspect you're just going to keep complaining about it on the internet.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[cold fjord]

You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.

As is common on Slashdot your histrionics are popular, but it is pure demagoguery. Who are these "millions" whose "well being" you claim are at risk? Hmmm? Who? How is their “well being” at risk?

And what freedom is in danger of not “surviving?”

Your entire post is rubbish and it is a mark of how rare thoughtful moderation is that it is so high.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[cold fjord]

Delusional? The NSA is violating people's rights and the highest law of the land...

Prove it. Prove that their actions are unconstitutional. It is often claimed, but the proof never seems to come. Where is the final court decision that says so? Where is the final court decision that says the Congress, the Executive branch, and all prior court decisions are wrong? Or is it "proved" by assertion only, proof by rhetoric?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you need more than most to do exactly what Jefferson suggested.

If you don't, then you really don't care about your children or their future.

Unless you are one of the top 1% of the top 1%, your children won't have a future as we would recognize it.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jane Q. Public]

I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.

I agree with the other person who replied. In effect, you are saying "I don't care who ELSE is made to be slaves, as long as I and my family can hide in this safe little cave and pretend it doesn't exist."

Part of the problem, indeed. You would "protect" your children by leaving them a life of servitude to others.

Some parent. I'm glad you weren't mine.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[davester666]

Yes. Hold your breath waiting for that to happen...

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[philip.paradis]

Fully agreed. As a father of three children, I've been decidedly unhappy about the way things have been heading for a long time now. My first inclination is to simply leave, taking my loved ones with me. In fact, that's the current plan, although I have a habit of making lots of noise about Constitutional rights on a daily basis, and I may well get myself into trouble because of it. Should that happen, so be it. I may be on the way out, but I'm not backing down while I'm still here.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[philip.paradis]

To clarify my last response, I once wore a uniform for this nation and swore an oath uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have no interest in staying in a nation full of people who are completely ignorant of their rights and obligations as citizens, a nation where the majority of the population is far too apathetic to care about those rights being trampled. I'll be here as long as it takes to build a solid foundation elsewhere, which is a work in progress, and I'm gone after that. I'm a fairly smart guy, and I have fairly diverse skills that I can utilize anywhere on the planet to provide for my loved ones. There are still a few places left where people care about individualism and rights. Not many, but a few.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[philip.paradis]

A federal judge has ruled the mass (meta)data collection activities of the NSA to be unconstitutional. The RNC has pushed for legislation to explicitly declare it so. The more disturbing point here is that the Constitution, which explicitly defines limits to the powers of government, existed long before the NSA. It has simply been ignored, and entirely too many people seem to be ignorant of this fact or simply don't care. Given the protections afforded in the Constitution, I challenge you to justify the legality of massive collection of private information on United States citizens by government agents without warrant or due process.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[philip.paradis]

What's truly sad to me is the fact that you and I have agreed on so many things in the past. It's sad because I am in vehement opposition to your views in this discussion. I must ask you a simple question: what do you presently do for a living, and what have you done in the past? Thank you.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Imrik]

I don't expect it to happen, but at this point it's marginally more likely than a violent revolution.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to care more about attention than actual history. I'd drop a nickle in your ear, but I don't give a fuck, whore.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

They can listen all they want, if they want to do something about it, they'll look funny wearing bullet proof vests with their brains painting the room.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[gmhowell]

That was awful. Pick up just about any Harry Turtledove book for a more thoughtful take on the subject.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

They can listen all they want

Nope, because that in itself is a constitutional violation.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

Prove it. Prove that their actions are unconstitutional.

*sigh*

You won't ever accept any argument I put forth, including ones about the spirit of the constitution, because you mindlessly appeal to authority to get all the answers, even though authority can and has been wrong countless times. I bet you'd even accept it if the Supreme Court suddenly ruled that the first amendment doesn't protect political speech. You're a drone with no mind of his own.

In the end, it's up to the people to make sure the government follows the constitution. Judges and politicians can (eventually) be replaced and, if necessary, the constitution can be amended (even though it shouldn't be necessary, it can be done for clarification to silence judges who are complicit in the crimes against the American people).

But that is not an answer you will accept, as authority figures are always right. They cannot be questioned.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[ganjadude]

right,because the courts are always correct right?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying something is unconstitutional or illegal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something unconstitutional or illegal There is a well defined process where the laws and actions in question can be evaluated by the courts. A court system that is by no means perfect but it means well and ever now and then they do get somethings right. In constitutional matters that would involve the Supreme Court. However, to kick start the judicial process requires someone with standing actually filing a charge stating their rights have been violated by the application of any of the laws in question. A person will need to show harm, real or imagined. The best way is when someone is charged with a crime and the evidence collected against the person originated from one of the controversial laws or statutes. To my knowledge no one has did this except in one case. A college professor was charged with violating articles of the Patriot Act and he raised the issue at trial and the judge ruled against the government and dismissed the charges and ruled the Patriot Act statute in question was not legal and the government did not appeal the ruling to draw attention to the case. If enough of these cases were litigated the government would most likely find many of the laws amended or entirely struck down. So far I have only been hearing people proclaiming their rights have been violated in some nebulous sort of way that is nothing but political activism gone amok than good judicial processes. All the complaints about the NSA seem to be about "what they could do with such information" not "what they have actually done with such information". To top things off a lot of the recently released information was not secret in nature. The domestic programs along with the FISA court has been in the public domain for quite some time. The details could be lacking in some cases but the information has been out there. The recent release of data has just put a spotlight on the programs. A lot of people also seem to be under the impression that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights apply internationally and they certainly do not. The US government is not responsible for the well being of foreign countries citizens. By design the major countries of the world always do what is in their countries best interest with everyone else coming in a distant second. When it comes to covert foreign intelligence programs the US is just one of many who do the exact same thing. Foreign Embassy staffs are comprised of a couple of visa processors, PR staff, and a lot foreign intelligence agents who operate with legal immunity in case they get caught.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[philip.paradis]

I'm 33 and have three children, two daughters and a son. I am interested in teaching them science, mathematics, literature, history, and how to think for themselves. I'm also interested in teaching each of them how to grow food, clean and shoot a rifle, clean and cook small game, and build things with their own hands. Political and economic conditions aside, I believe these are all things children should learn. What are you teaching your children?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

Just saying something is unconstitutional or illegal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something unconstitutional or illegal

Just saying something is constitutional or legal, no matter how loud or by how many people are saying it, does not make something constitutional or legal.

There is a well defined process where the laws and actions in question can be evaluated by the courts.

Courts can be wrong. Courts have been wrong. The constitution can be read by anyone. You're not fooling anyone, bootlicker.

Here's a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs."

The idea that the courts are always right is not only historically ludicrous, but it's a logical fallacy (the courts have disagreed with their own past decisions!).

So far I have only been hearing people proclaiming their rights have been violated in some nebulous sort of way that is nothing but political activism gone amok than good judicial processes.

Our judicial processes are anything but good. You seem to only consider it a violation if some judges say it is, but, again, that's a mere fallacy. If you do not think it is a violation of people's rights to conduct mass surveillance on people's communications, then you're delusional.

A lot of people also seem to be under the impression that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights apply internationally and they certainly do not.

Rarely does the constitution use the word "citizen."

Furthermore, whether or not it is constitutional, that doesn't make violating people's rights a moral thing to do. I would rather risk death than violate innocent people's privacy haphazardly.

Vanish.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[cavreader]

Are you seriously arguing that because "citizen" is not mentioned in the Constitution that it applies internationally? And I really don't care about the rights of a foreigner and I am pretty sure they would reciprocate the same feelings in spades. There are only so many hours of the day so I need to limit the time I spend worrying about things that really don't effect me. And I believe the original poster acknowledged the fallibility while you have declared the entire judicial system as defunct. I would be interested in what you think should take its place? It is not enough to issue blanket denunciations and protest against something without a good idea of what realistic alternative you would support.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

Are you seriously arguing that because "citizen" is not mentioned in the Constitution that it applies internationally?

I'm arguing that our government simply lacks certain powers. If the constitution does not explicitly grant the government a power, then it lacks it, and if it places a limitation about the government's power, then it also obviously lacks that power. The wording is very important.

And I really don't care about the rights of a foreigner and I am pretty sure they would reciprocate the same feelings in spades.

Whether or not the foreigner cares about your rights is 100% irrelevant to whether or not theirs should be respected. I just don't think we should conduct mass surveillance on innocent people. Is that so crazy?

And I believe the original poster acknowledged the fallibility while you have declared the entire judicial system as defunct.

Not defunct. It just has a number of flaws. When it comes to matters of challenging the constitutionality of a law or policy, there really needs to be a way to streamline the process, and people shouldn't be turned away just because they can't prove they were 'harmed'; I'd say the mere existence of an unconstitutional law harms every citizen.

Besides, the original poster acted as if judges were somehow more trustworthy and that they're the only ones who can declare that something is unconstitutional and be right about it; that's historically and logically inaccurate.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[david_thornley]

I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. It's against the spirit of the Constitution, as far as I can tell. However, I can construe the Fourth to allow this sort of data collection.

What people seem to forget is that we have protections that aren't just the words of the Constitution. Ultimately, we select the President and members of Congress, and if we can put enough pressure on them we'll get laws and policies we can live with. There's all sorts of harsh laws Congress could pass and the President could sign that would be constitutional. What hinders that is that the policies need to be publicly acceptable.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[david_thornley]

The Constitution applies internationally, in a sense. It's the charter for the US Federal government, and limits its actions unconditionally, whether by declaring specifically that the Feds can't do something, or by not saying the Feds can. It doesn't bind other governments, obviously, but it does limit what the US government can do with non-citizens.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Jane Q. Public]

I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.

It is.

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.

It is absurdly clear, if you know anything about history, that "papers and effects" included posted letters, which is why the government needs a warrant to intercept paper mail.

It is also not JUST absurdly clear, but by now also affirmed by the Supreme Court, that modern data and communications such as telephone conversations, files on your hard drive, and email are equivalent to the "papers and effects" described in the Constitution.

I could go on, but it isn't necessary.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[jeIIomizer]

I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights. It's against the spirit of the Constitution, as far as I can tell. However, I can construe the Fourth to allow this sort of data collection.

Well, you just said it yourself, even if you (for some reason) don't think that the Fourth explicitly forbids it: This is even in violation of the spirit of the constitution.

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's proof by common sense.
If the constitution says X is illegal, and your're doing X.
Is that too confusing for you?

Re:The Existence of a "United States of America"

[david_thornley]

The question is not what is "papers and effects" here, but what the NSA is doing with them. Posted letters are "papers and effects", but is copying the addresses and storing them in a massive database against the Fourth Amendment?

It used to be that, if some police agency wanted to keep an eye on what you were doing, an officer would have to be detailed to keep that eye on you, and the results would be written up and used locally, and not correlated with such surveillance in other jurisdictions. That meant that various processes did not generally amount to unreasonable searches. Since then, we have massive data stores. The USPS is capable of noting all mailing and return addresses, along with the type of mail, and pretty much doing what they please with the data. If I'm corresponding with somebody who lives next door to a terrorist, I may become a "person of interest" through this analysis.

I think that the difference in amount and correlation of surveillance amounts to a difference in kind, and that surveillance that is reasonable if done in small amounts is unreasonable when done massively and with data mining. I think the Founders would have forbidden that if they'd foreseen it.

As far as recording phone messages goes, at what point does that become a search, and hence if unreasonable unconstitutional? If nobody ever listens to the conversation, or mines it for data, is that a search? I can argue either way. and something that is arguable isn't clearly unconstitutional. If a tree falls on the NSA agent in a forest, does it make a sound?

Low Level Analyst?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are emails from a 'low level analyst' classified as TOP SECRET?

Re:Low Level Analyst?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was discussing Top Secret programs or information?

Discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, if Snowden is really a white knight, he files for their production.

No, Snowden is still NSA, this is just how it is piecemealed to the public that they've been raped over the barrel since 9/11.

Since 9/11....

Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Collective 0-0009]

At this point, there are numerous things happening such as laws, inquiries, public debate, and policy changes that are all due to Snowden's release of information. I feel that he has brought to the forefront an important issue and revealed things that the public needed to know. I can understand to some degree that people don't like how he did it, but given the machine that is the government, I don't doubt that this was the only way to bring about such changes (or at least debate and knowledge).

After a bit of a cool down period, I don't hear nearly as much hate for Snowden. Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and all other flavors should want a more open government. The government does also need to keep some things secret. This gives them a reason, the means, and a public grant of power to keep things from public knowledge. Some times the only way to circumvent that power is through a leak/whistle blower.

As far as this story, the public needs to pressure the government to keep no more secrets about Snowden. The cover of endangering certain sources or resources is no longer being accepted as we have seen little damage and much good from the release. It's time the US Government come clean and it's time we tell them that we demand it.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[wierd_w]

It has been my observation that the people who have blistering hatred for Snowden, are the kinds of people who totally embrace jingoism.

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

They see any kind of "restriction" on government's ability to secure "advantage" and "interest" as allowing "The terrorists to win" (or whatever is the current buzz phrase), As such, they view actions like snowden's as being completely un-american, because he undermined the interests of an american intelligence agency, who was collecting abhorrent amounts of information about everyone and everything--presumably to secure american interests, over foriegn interests. These are the same kinds of people that would support creation of a literal planet-killing super weapon, just to secure american military dominance, and would think nothing of it.

People that chug the jingo-laid come in all colors, all races, all creeds, and all genders: Liberal, Libertarian, Fiscal conservative, raging pinko, and gun toting whacko alike. The unifying feature is that they have bought into the "America is NUMBER ONE!!!!eleveltyone!" mantra.

Seeing that supporting "American interests" without question or hesitation is leading to somethig that is not the america they were promised, with real proof, and real scnadals, with real consequences (FOR THEM), is about the only way to get through to them, short of having them experience the stazi first hand, up close and brutal.

The bullshit needs to stop, and an anti-jingoism movement needs to sweep this country.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading this too
http://soylentnews.org/article...

I would say for a fact there is nothing this admin can do at this point that is not simply criminal in nature. They are straight up covering it up as best they can and destroying evidence. They just handed this man a get out of jail free card. For what could be argued as treason.

Obama could straight up make this mess right in under a week. But instead he sits by and lets it happen. Cabinet members are doing the work at this point. You do not go much higher than Obama himself.

When you make this man look sane by repeated lies you have went the wrong way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I was making fun of my family for their Obama hatred. I now am beginning to understand what he is doing is undermining everything our for-fathers built. They will no longer need lies to tell each other they will have truth and its much worse.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because every poor Fox News viewer has seen the NSA lie, get caught, lie again, get caught again, etc. about the whole mess.

*Snowden* is under ridiculous levels of governmental pressure, enough to crack a lot of less brave people. He stole, but as a whistleblower to reveal criminal abuse of the entire world's rights, treaties, and laws. Too bad Aaron Swartz couldn't have found something equally noteworthy to steal and publish, instead of material that was already available to subscribers and, usually, free at a public library. Then he'd have had a real excuse for chickening out of life.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[swillden]

It has been my observation that the people who have blistering hatred for Snowden, are the kinds of people who totally embrace jingoism.

But there are also those who don't have a blistering hatred, yet still feel that he broke the law and should be accountable. I find these people to be especially common among those who themselves are or have been under legal and moral obligations to preserve US government secrets and are appalled that Snowden essentially dumped a huge pile of unsifted sensitive data on the Guardian and trusted them to keep it secure and behave responsibly.

These people largely agree with the need to publish some of the data, but find dumping all of it to be criminally irresponsible.

I think there are a lot more people like that than those who have the blistering hatred you mention. FWIW, my own take (as someone who once held a Top Secret clearance) is that Snowden's action was necessary, that it was infeasible for him to properly vet and carefully release the data, that the news agencies have done a good job and been responsible, and that whatever damage it may have done is far more than offset by the good that it has done. So on balance I consider him a hero. But I do know a lot of people whose concern about what he did tips the balance the other way, even though they don't "have blistering hatred".

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[DNS-and-BIND]

It has been my experience that those exact same people are very quick to label anything but their own thinking jingoism. They can't even accept there might be such a thing as patriotism, and if it did exist it surely wouldn't apply to America, the nation that is worse than Nazi Germany. How do you have an argument with people who believe that borders shouldn't exist?

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been my observation that the people who have blistering hatred for Snowden, are the kinds of people who totally embrace jingoism.

Couldn't disagree more, in fact I think the blistering hatred I've seen has generally fallen under:

1. Those in power, or part of the system, who feel that Snowden is a threat to that system.

2. Those whose self-identity is currently blindedly wrapped up with those in power.

3. Those who are more afraid (rightly or wrongly) of what others might do to us than what the government is or may even one day do.

In some ways I have the most sympathy for #3, as while it's easy to trot out the Ben Franklin line, these people have generally never heard that line and are going by their gut with limited information and statistics, let alone a very limited knowledge of history.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're exposing the lawbreakers, you are protected by the whistleblower act.

Snowden did absolutely NOTHING illegal whatsoever. All the other asshats over at the NSA, in the White House are treasonous traitors to this country, and need to be charged, tried and convicted of such, with only one punishment for treason allowed during their so-called "time of war on terror".

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[wierd_w]

You misunderstand sir--

I dont hate america. I hate what america has become, and where it is going. America is no longer a place of ideals. It no longer is a place where liberty and freedom are real things, bought and paid for with blood.

America today is a place where you work more than 9 hours a day, every day if possible, with more than half the population either in jail, or having previously been in jail, where you live in inescapable debt to a tiny fraction of the population-- who makes all the rules, and enforce those rules with corrupt courts, secret courts, wiht literal bribery in government, and where you dont really have any real say in the matter. (and if you try, you can find yourself being subjected to extraordinary rendition, and tortured.) It is also the place where big corporations hold more political voice than the general public, where double standards where big money is at stake is the norm, and where all this bullshit is hand waved away with an outright lie that "America is Number One!"

This country gets more and more like North Korea every day.

I'm sorry, but when exactly will you realize that patriotism and jingoism are not the same thing at all? A patriot stands up for what is good and wholesome about his country-- the things he loves about it-- in the face of those things that seek to destroy and undermine those things

I suppose if you love the fact that america is the single most militaristic and self-serving nation on the planet, armed with nukes, and lacking any practical sense to not fuck the world up on short sighted and insane political and military pissing matches, and that it loves its own power so much that it does not even trust its own citizens, and feels it has to spy on, and secretly punish internal dissent in shamelessly illegal ways, Then I suppose the current US is something that you could feel genuine patriotism for.

As for me, I prefer the way the US was 30 years ago-- or even further back yet.

America and americans can look out for american interests, and be proud of their home and nationality, without having to resort to international briggandry, and domestic thuggery.

America and americans can be proud, without "Being Number One!!"-- Like, having an actually rich culture, or having a real, genuine reputation for being a good place to live.

But the lie is so much easier to live, isn't it?

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[Anonymous Coward]

I listen to talk radio from time to time. "Know your enemy" etc. I've never once hear them talk about Snowden. This type of conservative believes in a strong law enforcement as long as it is targeted a minority who is different from them. They hate the IRS and the EPA, but they love the NSA. Look at the innocent Americans who were targeted by the NSA. Muslims. That's okay with the talk radio folk. As long as older white straight Christian males are left alone.

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[jeIIomizer]

America is no longer a place of ideals. It no longer is a place where liberty and freedom are real things, bought and paid for with blood.

It never was. We had slavery, internment camps, discrimination, and at *any* point in our history (including the cold war), people's freedoms and the constitution were being violated in exchange for 'safety' of some kind. There are still too many problems to fix before we'll ever be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[TangoMargarine]

Godwin

Re:Snowden's Patriotism is Gaining Acceptance

[DNS-and-BIND]

You are confusing "America" with "the US federal government". They are two different things. North Korea...really? As a Marxist state, that is a much nicer place.

Ask Snowden!

[jargonburn]

Perhaps they should try and contact Edward Snowden and see if he has copies of those email messages that'd he'd care to release.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[SeaFox]

That wouldn't matter. The government would simply claim any messages they don't like the content of were falsified. We could ask them to release their copies then, but they could similarly release doctored emails. The end result would be a classic case of he said/she said.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[John.Banister]

Except, one of the two has been shown to be a liar. The NSA can refuse as they please so long as they have money from Congress and guns from other federal agencies to back them up. However, I seriously doubt that they could get an evidentially unsupported assertion to hold up in public court.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[TubeSteak]

Snowden should fill out one of these for Greenwald and have him send the FOIA request:

Authorization for the Release of Records to Another Individual
http://foia.state.gov/Request/ThirdPartyAuthorization.aspx

/The link is for the State Department, but the release is part of the FOIA law and (AFAIK) applies to any FOIA requests.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[TangoMargarine]

If they've already perjured themselves in court I don't see why they would have any qualms about fabricating evidence.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[John.Banister]

Good point. I think what it comes down to is understanding how to structure a group of people so that the group, acting as a whole, is capable of prioritizing moral behavior over it's own interests. Most large organizations seem to have the same concept of morality as single celled organisms.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[TangoMargarine]

In practice, I would expect that to only work in not-for-profit organizations.

But I've gradually come to the conclusion that the reason most of the world's problems aren't solved already is because due to the nature of humans they can't be. Too many systems revolve around people acting ethically and when there's money involved it just doesn't work. And there's always money involved somehow.

Re:Ask Snowden!

[John.Banister]

I think that individual people can do sufficiently alright if the don't consider that they're anonymous or acting in the interest of others. Not always, and for some perhaps, seldom ever, but on the whole, I think, sufficiently alright. When people are acting as part of a group, it seems that they often allow the least common denominator ethics in the group to supersede their own rather than feeling obligated not to fail the group by representing with less than proper behavior. I don't think that organizations need to be non-profit, but I absolutely do believe that they need to be not only profit. I think it needs to be understood that organizations whose highest priority is profit are like individuals who shoplift. It's not behavior that's impossible to fathom, but it can't be rewarded when it's discovered.

Misuse of FOIA

[_KiTA_]

First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure. It is not designed to request all the emails of a certain employee, nor should it. The FOIA is designed for targeted requests for specific information, not blanket demands so conspiracy theorists can try to dig for "evidence." The NSA should have ignored this FOIA act or pointed that out.

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it, the fake story Greenwald and Matthew Keys are trying to push is that the NSA is somehow hiding it, the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

Re: Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA has already admitted to one email to the NSA Office of Counsel. They previously denied that one existed.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the NSA never lies about what they know?

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[DarkOx]

You are absolutely correct but they know perfectly well it would just be followed up with the obvious and very specific request for "All e-mails from Edward Snowden with subject matter relating to the legality of the internet monitoring and cellular meta data gathering activities conducted by the NSA".

And then they'd be right back here were they are now. Having to make the same excuse, which might have some legitimacy as those mails probably are evidence in an on going criminal investigation of Snowden; all though we all know he isn't returning to the States without some kind of immunity agreement so its rather hollow sounding. Think how hollow it would sound if it was a second excuse given.

The reality is Snowden's story about having attempted to raise the issues thru the proper channels is likely truthful and would just expose more NSA and State Department lies. The would rather just look like dicks and someone felt just shutting down the FOIA avenue would look less Dickish than being evasive.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[ddt]

Second off, this story (and the multitude of Greenwald/Snowden cult of personality reposters) is missing the most important thing in the NSA's response, the last sentence:

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA. They could be lying outright, or they could be doing it the DC way, which is telling the truth in a misleading way, by overlooking the fact that he approached them in person about it instead of in written form, which I certainly would have, as I'd be nervous as shit about writing an email like that.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii. There's nothing cowardly about all that.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[jeIIomizer]

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

Revealing the government's evil and unconstitutional activities makes you a cowardly little shit? I suppose, in your mind, mindlessly obeying the government is a good example of a patriot in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'? He sure did a hell of a lot more than you, you authoritarian imbecile.

I personally really advise people to *not* try to go through the internal channels. That alerts them that you're trying to stop what they're doing, and they could put an end to you right there, which decreases the chances that the American people will ever know. The first people to know should be The People. Going through the 'proper channels' is just foolish and unnecessary.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[James McGuigan]

Edward Snowdon understood what would happen if he where to seriously try and push the issue internally.

The global surveillance network was a core NSA policy authorized at the highest levels. This was not simply some rouge agent or rouge department. Previous individuals have attempted to raise concerns internally and failed to achieve any change underlying policy. The NSA has even deliberately lied to congress on the matter.

As a contractor, he has no employment rights. Making noise would likely get his security clearance revoked and his employer finding someone else who doesn't have a moral problem with surveillance. It would also likely get himself added to the NSA watchlist.

As a pragmatist, his decision to publicly release records has successfully created enough political pressure for congress to at least review the NSA's policies. A cowardly little shit who was willing to risk everything on a high risk venture, with a very strong possibility of getting caught, that takes some major balls from someone who knows exactly what the NSA is capable of.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Collective 0-0009]

I see your point that FOIA was designed for specific requests. But in this case the question is if he ever reported this to superiors. It could have been in person, but he probably would have covered himself and sent it in email. The only way to see if he ever sent emails reporting the issues is to see all emails. That request would mean a full release of his emails.

Of course, the reality is that this would have been one or two carefully crated emails. Taking 2-4 emails out of an archive with a daily average of 50 for a tech worker (pulled out my ass), would be unnoticeable. So the whole thing is pointless unless Snowden himself can show undeniable proof of these emails, and for bonus points a response.

Re: Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA troll needs more work.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Guy From V]

I'd mod this up purely for "captain fuckface" if I had any left.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[cold fjord]

Since you are so well informed (and well mannered), I have a question for you.

If Edward Snowden could steal 1.7 million documents and sneak them out of the NSA, why couldn't he manage to steal copies of his emails showing that he raised the issues that he claims? If he had, then people wouldn't have to engage in these sort of fishing expeditions. But for some reason it appears it either wasn't able to do that, or the emails don't exist.

Since he has already leaked documents on the programs he objected to you would think he could also release the emails showing that he objected to them ... if those emails actually existed ... and he had them.

He has tens or hundreds of thousands of documents on the intelligence programs of America's allies, a million and a half on America's intelligence programs and technology, but not a couple of emails that he himself wrote. Quite odd.

Any thoughts on that?

By the way, you should probably leave the word "civilized" out of your reply, I'm not sure you're qualified to use it.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Noah Haders]

A FOIA request can be made for any agency record...

An FOIA request is made which would either prove, or disprove something in question.

I always pronounced it FOIA, like rhymes with Goya. So it would be a FOIA. But is it pronounced F-O-I-A?

Re: Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off NSA shill. You ard atraitor to country

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

> First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure.

Hey, congrats on reading littlegreenfootballs!

It’s supposed to be a targeted request for specific information, not a fishing expedition.

Looks like you've got the blend of self-righteous nit-picking down

Can I get a dudebro!?

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

“For your information, there are no emails indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

That's the real story here. The FOIA request was trying to show that Snowden tried to warn the NSA about abuses but they ignored it,

You are right, that quote is the real story here. The FOIA request said nothing about what reporter expect to find - it just listed a range of dates and snowden's email address.

It is really odd that the NSA's response included that unprompted explanation. I wonder why they did that?

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[SeaFox]

... the real story is that Snowden, Libtard hero, never even tried to whistleblow.

He's no patriot, he's just a cowardly little shit.

He did something he knew would raise the ire of the government to the point they would want to capture him and torture him, dooming himself to a life on the run for the rest of his days. Yeah, he's a real yellow-belly.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using "cowardly little shit"...I don't think those words mean what you think they do in his case...

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Razed By TV]

Cowardly little shit and major balls don't often go together.

Also, rouge agent steals your makeup, rogue agent steals your data.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[cold fjord]

Hmmm, looks like a (-1 inconvenient question) mod.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the person who sacrificed his quite comfortable life for what he believed to be the greater good is a "cowardly little shit."

It is very doubtful that you or I will ever do anything nearly so courageous, so that's just an embarrassing accusation to make.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[cold fjord]

He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii.

Since it sounds like he really hasn't been in touch with her it looks more like he dumped his girlfriend. Why hasn't he invited his girlfriend to Russia?
He has stated that the only reason he took his "cushy job" was to steal classified documents:
      Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
Snowden couldn't be found in the airport for long stretches of time. Perhaps he was resting in a Russian supplied suite?
The simple truth is we know next to nothing about Snowden's living conditions in Russia, other than he is being protected by the FSB, who has no doubt had many chats with him, and his spokesman is on the FSB's public committee and a friend of Putin.

You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA.

You'd have a great point if there was any reason we could trust Snowden, a man who lied to friends, family, girlfriend, coworkers and the government to steal top secret documents and flee the country. The fact that he as leaked top secret documents doesn't make him trustworthy.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

You wear USA like a brand name like a good little jingoistic bitch, don't you?

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Haluk Yildirim]

Everyone is assuming that he doesn't have his own emails! MIGHT be waiting for NSA to lay its hand down first, then, maybe, Snowden will release his emails then, maybe... the other point is, if, the amount or size or enormity of the information released by now, didn't shake / shape the world, then, the release of Snowden's own emails will not have any effect anyway... what information in Snowden's emails could be worst then the information released by now??? shakes the trust amongst the allies of America? already out. remember Angela Merkel.. Gives away all the internal mechanics of NSA ?? remember the tools they use. So, what information in those Snowden emails could be more important / dangerous then the information released by now? Would you hold on to them till last minute?

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

He took 1.7 million documents.
So, he had access to 1.7 million documents, at least.
What kind of documents? What format, where stored?
Did his job allow this sort of access?
His emails, what kind of system do they use, and did he have access to that?

So, for me,
Access to the documents taken may or may not equal access to his emails.
He may or may not have been able to take them.
He may or may not have thought that things would proceed to this question.
He may or may not have sent the emails he claims.
The NSA may or may not be covering up.
He may have them, or some very like them or not
The NSA may or may not have emails, or the ability to show that no such emails were sent or not

I agree that his disclosure was too wide. Perhaps he was worried about being shut down, though.
On the other hand, the US has not been kind to whistle blowers at all.

Re:Misuse of FOIA

[david_thornley]

I rather suspect he could have taken copies of his emails. He may not have thought them important at the time. This may have been a mistake. Alternately, he may have formed a plan earlier and executed it, only thinking of his emails later. I do know he isn't going back to retrieve them.

In any case, I have no credible evidence that said emails never existed. Got any?

I'd bet....

[Rick Zeman]

...Snowden would waive his right to privacy, but the NSA's answer would no doubt be the same.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"could interfere with law enforcement"

[Opportunist]

Like ... how? Tip off Snowden that he's wanted?

Re:"could interfere with law enforcement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove that the persecution err.... prosecution is full of crap?

Re:"could interfere with law enforcement"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if they did have them and divulged them, it'd validate his claims and get them in a lot more hot water than they already are. The believe they're "law enforcment" of the most important kind...and it'd interfere with their actions very adversely.

Re:"could interfere with law enforcement"

[Opportunist]

Well, telling that the prosecution is full of crap... is that punishable for slander or for telling national secrets?

"law enforcement"

[Mister Liberty]

A grand meme.

IRS Email

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has been attempting to get Lois Learner's emails for over a year and a half at this point. Only recently were they finally told that they had been destroyed accidently. It took the IRS over a year to inform Congress of this.

However, Judicial Watch has an FOIA request that is requiring an IRS official, in writing, under threat of purgury if they lie, to explain exatly how the emails were destroyed, by who and so on. This is something Congress has not been able to do themselves over a year and a half.

If the administration is not answerable to Congress, then they better be anserable to FOIA requests. If not they are not legimitate and I guess we have no more reason to listen to any part of the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

Really?

[Dega704]

Well the government has made one thing very clear. They believe that they are the only beings on earth that are entitled to privacy or secrecy, and they are entitled to ALL of it while simultaneously violating everyone else's eight ways till friday.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If by government you mean the NSA and the rest of the spy organizations having the privacy, while the rest of are current/future targets.

They have been spying on all the Congress members, there is only a short lit of who they do NOT spy on.

Re:Really?

[Yebyen]

I think this is what he's talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Yes, NSA spies on Congress. No, Congress doesn't like that, but they don't mind the rest of us being spied on. She was only pissed off about the spying once she realized she was also targeted.

The NSA cites protection of personal privacy

[SiliconSeraph]

This may be the most ironic thing I've seen in a while.

Re:The NSA cites protection of personal privacy

[TangoMargarine]

If you've gotta lie, lie big, bald-faced, and without shame.

That really explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, it really does explain it.

why didn't he take his emails

[job0]

Don't understand why he didn't take and leak the relevant emails?

Re:why didn't he take his emails

[mu51c10rd]

He may not have thought it worth the time to export his NSA mailbox to a pst when he had much juicier stuff to copy off the network...

Hire a contractor ...

[CaptainDork]

... to go in and get them.

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

I just stopped at the "could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

would reveal "techniques and procedures"

[Gravis Zero]

"would reveal law enforcement techniques and procedures"

in other words, it would expose your illegal activities. gotcha.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Major balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowdan suffers severe scrotal swelling, you insensitive clod!

Re:"fundamental rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be under the delusional misconception that biologicals outside the NSA are people and not terrorist-probabilities.

All lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA says a lot of things, most of which are lies.

"none of the above" wins in a landslide!

[Thud457]

But... but... if I vote for a third party candidate, the other party's guy will get in!!!

Translation to English please

[Anonymous Coward]

The plural of email is ... email. It's like, you know, MAIL. English is hard, kids.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Re:Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Sciath]

Illogical; based upon a false assumption. Assumption being that election results are premised upon everyone voting for strictly one of two obvious choices. Based upon that assumption it precludes the possibility of voters electing a third party candidate at some point. History does not determine the future. One does not know in advance what the outcome will be. Your assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If ... voters were left to their own devises a reasonable chance exists that neither one of the obvious choices will be elected. When voters vote for the sole purpose of being on the winning side and not based upon candidate views, ideas, etc. then they are undermining the very idea of democratic elections.

Re:Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I always see US elections as lottery where you have to pick winning side, not the most appropriate side.

Re:Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Sciath]

And that's why American politics and government is so tucked up. People want to vote for who they think the favorite will be not the best qualified. Which reinforces my assertion that if change is wanted it is not a wasted vote to vote for the best qualified as opposed to a projected winner. Eventually, when voters grasp that things will change. But change will never happen if voters aren't willing to take a chance on someone else. An taking a chance requires the act of voting for that third party candidate.

NSA Protects Itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Any time NSA claims revealing a document would damage the nation in some way, they really mean it would reveal another illegal technique they utilize.

Criminal Proceedings

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence in any future criminal proceedings. There is nothing new or nefarious about this -- it's standard procedure.

NSA Always has something to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they hiding? Likely the fact that Mr. Snowden attempted to report crimes being committed by the NSA in a more appropriate manner before he did what he did... That's my guess.