Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Posted by Soulskill on from the everybody-else-is-watching-duck-dynasty dept.

TheRealHocusLocus writes: We are witness to a historic first: an individual charged with espionage and actively sought by the United States government has been (virtually) invited to speak at Harvard Law School, with applause. [Note: all of the following links go to different parts of a long YouTube video.] HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig conducted the hour-long interview last Monday with a list of questions by himself and his students.

Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?

24 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Snowden by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right or Wrong, he's a brave man.

    1. Re:Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right or Wrong, he's a patriot.

      FTFY

    2. Re: Snowden by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is your point? When his peers were fired for whistleblowing on this issue, the activity continued without review, the public didn't know and neither did Congress, his actions seem perfectly rational if 1. He knew the U.S. government was acting and was going to act like an asshole (obvious from the whistleblowing) and 2. Had conviction that he wasn't doing anything wrong and therefore didn't think he deserved to be punished for doing the right thing.

        If he (or we) could trust the government to give him a fair trial (not obvious given Assange and Manning), maybe he wouldn't have had to flee to our enemies for protection from us.

      I mean, after all, he didn't slip our enemies our secrets under cover or for profit, he threw them to the public and to the media and then sought asylum. It isn't like he is living like an aristocrat in Russia.

      What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Snowden by rholtzjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This man stood up to the oath "protect from foreign and domestic" threats. And they now want to persecute him for espionage?
      Totally disgraceful!!!
      I still think we need to fire all Judicial, Legislative and Executive branch members and start over.
      Or better yet hold them responsible for the lack of over site.

    4. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He never intended to stay in Russia. The U.S. bullied every single country into submission to ignore rights, rules and laws to either deny snowdon asylum and/or deny the right to cross their countries by air. Including revoking his passport. Which is a first.

      They even violated diplomatic protection by treating the head of state (the president) of Equador (?) like a criminal and searched the presidential plane for Snowdon. I wonder how you would react if someone detain the U.S. president and storm the Air Force one with dogs and machine guns in search for someone.

    5. Re:Snowden by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right or Wrong, he's a traitor

      Edward Snowden is indeed a _traitor_ to those who want to turn the United States of America into the United POLICE States of America

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    6. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. He has to reveal himself to make it impossible for the U.S. government to deny everything and call it FUD/hoax/lie/whatever. By revealing himself and explaining it the U.S. was forced to act against him and thus actually confirm his leaks.

      2. He had to go from Hong Kong as China advised him to go to avoid kerfuffle with the USA. (This even China was bullied). Russia was Snowdons only viable option as Russia is (surprisingly) the only nation where US law doesn't apply and the USA can't to jackshit.

    7. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quote :

      The US has never tried Assange, and he isn't wanted by the US.

      You might want to reconsider that claim :

      http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/

      http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing

      http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228

      To shut you down : All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

      Mass violation of the constitution, mass intrusion of privacy of innocent people throughout the world, destruction of trust, violating foreign countries sovereignty and bullying then to violate their own laws and/or change to please the U.S. *is* evil.

      Let me tell you. For many, many people outside the U.S., the NSA is more evil than IS and Al-quaida combined. And I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of US citizens wouldn't feel the same.
      IS are insane asshole on a regional level. The NSA is an insane psychopathic asshole on a global level.

      Do you work in Fort Meade?

    8. Re: Snowden by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Wrong" and "illegal" are not necessarily synonymous. For those of us living in the US (as in most democracies), I think most of the time they coincide reasonably well. That's the entire point of our legal system, of course - to codify and enforce societal mores and pass judgment on those that break from them.

      Governments, however, are made up of people, and people have a penchant for pushing limits and boundaries, or ignoring rules when it suits them, or outright breaking them when it's more convenient to do so. I don't think the NSA does what they do maliciously for the most part - most of them probably really do want to catch bad guys who wish to do the US harm. I do, however, think the way the NSA is going about it is both unconstitutional and wrong. Snowden apparently thought so too, and so had to make a decision to break laws for what he considered to be the greater good. Bear in mind this was *after* he had tried to go through legitimate channels.

      The fact that, even after public disclosure, the program is continuing demonstrates the futility of working from within to stop the mass surveillance. The government simply doesn't see it as an abuse of power at all. Unfortunately, apparently a significant portion of our population either doesn't care or thinks the wiretapping is fine. So, in terms of "right" or "wrong", as defined by public mores, this probably lands in a decidedly gray area.

      BTW, when you say "You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone, or that he didn't give copies of the documents to anyone in secret.", that's an argument you could make about anyone at any time. It's impossible to prove a negative, of course. Instead, show me any sort of proof that Snowden benefited from his revelations in any way at all (other than notoriety, which is fame that sane people don't want to have), and I'll re-think my position. It's hard to argue that he's in any way better off than if he had simply clammed up about what he saw.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    9. Re:Snowden by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Russia thinks so. China does too.

      Can you be a patriot to more than one country?

      Russia and China were happy because Snowden embarrassed the US government, with whom they're not exactly on the friendliest terms with. That perspective is important. They don't give a shit if he's a patriot or not, but they'll call him one if it means pouring salt in the US gov's wounds.

      From my perspective, Snowden more or less took a bullet for the entire country's right to privacy, and from what I could see, did so because of his principles. Still, no one can look inside someone else's heart. All I can see is that he had everything to lose and nothing to gain by what he did. That means he's either insane or incredibly principled, and he doesn't strike me as an insane sort.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think so. Cold Fjord is worse because he may actually be just another citizen that believes that the State is right to invade the privacy and build profiles of everyone on the globe.

      What is scary is that if he represents the views of a large enough block of people, then recovering any sense of privacy and liberty is lost for a long, long, long time.

      captcha: repulse...I swear this thing is an AI. Is the NSA powering slashdot now?

    11. Re: Snowden by HJED · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great man therefore traitor to status quo != traitor to status quo therefore great man.

      --
      null
    12. Re:Snowden by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I forget the source, but it's been said that a true patriot honours all nations.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently some people think only gov can decide what is a threat and what is not. With such thinking gov itself will never be a threat. Dangerous, if you ask me.

    14. Re: Snowden by cellocgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.

      I'm not in the least convinced that it was illegal. Revealing classified info which reveals the existence of criminal behavior is not necessarily illegal (at least as of one of my early briefings when having a clearance bestowed upon my august presence).

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    15. Re:Snowden by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His supervisors at the NSA certainly did. I think we can be reasonable that the head of the NSA, and the upper levels of management, knew the extent of this monitoring, even if they didn't know the day to day details. They're the ones who should be facing prosecution in this case.

    16. Re: Snowden by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and I disagree 100% with you on this cold. not everything, but this one I feel you are dead wrong

      tell me cold, if you were in the NSA, and you were witnessing the constitutional wrong doings, and you had no legit way to get that information to the american public who rightfully deserved to know the abuses being done in our name??? not a trap i legitimately want to know how you would go about getting us the information in a way that, in your mind, does not make you a traitor (saying we dont need to know is not an answer)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  2. Not just "unreasonable". by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the NSA is doing is billions of counts of illegal wiretapping. A This kind of mass data gathering is precisely what the fourth amendment prohibits, and any person involved with this program is violating their oath and committing felonies on a routine basis.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Not just "unreasonable". by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury. Once it is in the grand jury's hands, the government cannot order the prosecutor to stop anything and it is almost impossible for the administration to stop as the judicial branch is separate. Congress would have to pass a law barring the judicial branch from taking the case up or proceeding with the case which would only work if a court didn't find constitutional issues with the case before it was passed.

      Do not construe this comment to be in support of the NSA, just reality as it is presented to us today.

    2. Re:Not just "unreasonable". by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One more point, a court can't do anything on it's own. It has to wait until someone can show they were harmed by the NSA through the wiretapping and brings the case to the courts. Good luck with that.

      The violation of rights IS the harm, and it's done on such a massive scale against the entire populace that it can only be considered treason.

    3. Re:Not just "unreasonable". by Astro+Dr+Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I see it, every agency that has a hand in the domestic surveillance programs detailed by Snowden is in violation of Federal law, and yes these are felonies. From Title 18 of the United States Code:

      241. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
      If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
      They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      242. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    4. Re:Not just "unreasonable". by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, a court cannot exactly enforce any decision ruling or anything else. That gets passed on to the executive so I'm not going to argue the futility you expressed as it is more than appropriate. We saw this first hand several times in history- one of which was when FDR's new deal legislation was declared unconstitutional and FDR basically said "so what" forcing the court to expand the interstate commerce clause into the monster it is today in order to avoid a constitutional meltdown.

      But even if a government official can lie in court, it doesn't mean they will win when it is known they are lieing. As for a pardon, yes, a president can pardon anyone for any violation of any law. It would stop the court proceeding but a pardon implies guilt with no consequences or at minimum the equivalence of no contest without the ability to punish the person. That provides sort of a quirky area where the court can still rule on the case but not impose punishment. Or in other words, a pardon on a person would not prevent the court from saying the program must stop because it is unconstitutional. The pardon does not remove a court order declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it shut down as matter of fact within the case. At that point, it will be up to the electorate if they want to keep someone in office who violates the law and constitution or not. I suspect that the answer will be no and they will demand congress impeach the president or vote overwhelmingly for any person of another party who pledges to end the program.

      As for showing cause, you are correct, and if a law existed that did not allow the NSA to collect the crap that we all know violates the constitution, cause could be shown. In fact, cause was shown before and a case was advancing which is why congress passed a law allowing the collection and implemented the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think it was Hepting v. AT&T another seems to be advancing on what was learned from that case and NSA whistle blowers but is directed at the government itself which doesn't have the immunity.

  3. What's Keith Alexanders new company doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's no way companies are paying Alexanders new company a million $ a month to consult. He's not allowed to reveal secret info, and public info is free. So what would the be paying for. There's no way the current NSA CTO is moonlighting for it and nobody in the NSA bats an eyelid. You would never have a part time employee in that position in the NSA, the money would be a conflict of interest.

    What does make sense, is if this company is a conduit from banks and telcos to NSA.

    You can't legally search US bank records, but if his company received those records and resold them, then a conduit like that could conceal the source of the data. So this is what makes a more plausible role for that company that would be worth the millions per year, laundering the source of the data into the NSA.

    A data broker for data that the NSA legally can't obtain from the original source. When they ask the NSA if it obtained US Bank data, it says no (pretending it doesn't know the data it bought from this conduit company came from banks), when they ask them if they obtained telco data they again say no.

    Likewise foreign partners like GCHQ, are spying on Brits via companies like BT & Vodafone and sending the data to the NSA. But suppose instead they simply sold data for some company to process, and that company happened to resell that data to some other company which then lands in the NSAs database.

    Q. Did NSA get any data from Vodafone.
    A. Not to my knowledge.... says the NSA man.

    A million dollars worth of plausible deniability. Now that *does* seem a more plausible role for his new company and its what I suspect is behind it.

  4. NSA Theme song by ddibble · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sting calls it decades ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...