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?

9 of 221 comments (clear)

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

    Right or Wrong, he's a brave man.

    1. 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);
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.
  2. 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.

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

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