Why us furrrners get upset at some US foreign policy etc

[MiM]

Of course, if everyone would use strong client side encryption for their email, the email contents would be a nonproblem. Unfortunately, the big email providers seem unwilling to provide this service automatically. And, of course, metadata would still be available to the spooks.

And this I have found very weird for a long time already. Is this really due only to human intellectual laziness, or do the providers want to keep the possibility to tap communications for commercially valuable stuff, or just maybe some strong governments have put in a strong word or two against it, to ensure their ability to spy . At least in France strong encryption was completely forbidden for the public, not that long ago. And the RSA algorithm was export controlled in the USA, even though it was simple enough to be printed on a t-shirt.

[Seth]

A question for Ian:

I'm pretty sure that as a member of the US armed forces, you took an oath with words to the effect of "I swear to... defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

As a US government employee working for the security/intelligence services, I'd be surprised if Edward Snowden didn't also take a similar oath.

Bearing in mind the contents of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the fourth amendment:

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 seems to me that the NSA's activities which Snowden blew the whistle on, (specifically, blanket spying on any/all US citizens' communications) place the NSA rather decicively in the "domestic enemy" category. Their activities were unconstitutional, and directed against the American people. ALL of them, not just specific individuals suspected of criminal activity, and there was no warrant, probable cause, oath or affirmation.

So when Snowden blew the whistle on those activities, he was doing his sworn duty as he saw it, knowing that he was breaking the law by doing so, and that this would have very serious consequences for him personally.

I think it is perfectly reasonable and justified to be upset by the fact that Snowden had to break the law in order to do his sworn duty. What is harder to understand is why someone would be upset with HIM.

So my question is this: If you had to break the law in order to do your sworn duty to defend your country against a domestic enemy (such as the government of the United States, or one of its agencies), would you? And would you please explain the reasoning behind your decision?

(I'm about to go away on holiday, but I'll read your reply with interest on my return.)

Snowden's enormous mistake, and what makes him a traitor rather than a whistleblower is his taking and revealing of the DETAILS of the surveillance programs in ways that harm the legitimate security interests of the United States and give "aid and comfort" to our enemies.

What would have made him a whistleblower instead of a traitor would have been for him to reveal the EXISTENCE of the surveillance programs with only that evidence necessary to prove such programs exist and are being misused in violation of the Constitution (if that's what he thought was happening) TO THE CONGRESS, which has the authority to convene either public or classified hearings to hear any relevant details that support the charges.

Snowden didn't follow the whistleblower protocol so far as anyone knows. No information is extant that he tried to follow the protocols set up by the Congress to report government wrongdoing. He just stole critical classified information and gave it to the British press and who knows what he's done with the actual technical details he has that are legitimately classified materials. It's pretty apparent he's looking for asylum somewhere that will pay him well to reveal what he knows, which makes him nothing more than a traitorous mercenary out for the big bucks.

For that he deserves death, as quickly as possible, before he reveals any more classified information to our enemies. I certainly hope the CIA has a legion of wetwork operators out looking for a chance to off him.

[Audley Strange]

For someone who claims to be big on Tolerism and libertarianism, your awfully fond of people losing their liberty or life for things you disagree with. At this point its coming across like a camp worn out punchline from a bad 70's show.

This was a contract by a by a company with an individual. The government has no right to intervene in any disciplinary process. If their contract with the private company meant that the company was in breach, then the government should hold the signatory responsible for Snowden's actions, not Snowden. Hey wasn't government meant to be small and contract out all this stuff anyway?

Don't worry. All silly ideologies have similar problems. Damn humans won't fit even when you hack them into shape.

[Warren Dew]

Of course, if everyone would use strong client side encryption for their email, the email contents would be a nonproblem. Unfortunately, the big email providers seem unwilling to provide this service automatically. And, of course, metadata would still be available to the spooks.

And this I have found very weird for a long time already. Is this really due only to human intellectual laziness, or do the providers want to keep the possibility to tap communications for commercially valuable stuff, or just maybe some strong governments have put in a strong word or two against it, to ensure their ability to spy . At least in France strong encryption was completely forbidden for the public, not that long ago. And the RSA algorithm was export controlled in the USA, even though it was simple enough to be printed on a t-shirt.

I can't speak to other places, but in the U.S., it's an issue of government pressure on the big oligopolies, although the oligopolists certainly don't resist the pressure. The pressure is in the form of export control laws as well as direct pressure from the administration.

There are some technical difficulties. Apple, for example, would have to sell a separate domestic version of their OS to put encryption into the email client, and tell people that they might not be able to take the computers with that OS version overseas. AOL and Google could do things rather more simply, since they can detect whether a user is in the U.S. and provide the encryption software from within-US or outside-US location accordingly.

A supplemental IMAP RFC would be needed, but that's only a few man months of effort, so it's not a barrier for the size of companies we're talking about.

Google, particularly, claims not to be evil, and the fact they haven't done that rather gives the lie to that claim.

[laklak]

Homing pigeons, that's the ticket. Using lemon juice invisible ink.

EDIT: for the message, lemon juice invisible ink for the message. The pigeons can't use it, they don't have thumbs.

[Seth]

Double post

[Seth]

For someone who claims to be big on Tolerism and libertarianism, your awfully fond of people losing their liberty or life for things you disagree with. At this point its coming across like a camp worn out punchline from a bad 70's show.

This was a contract by a by a company with an individual. The government has no right to intervene in any disciplinary process. If their contract with the private company meant that the company was in breach, then the government should hold the signatory responsible for Snowden's actions, not Snowden. Hey wasn't government meant to be small and contract out all this stuff anyway?

Don't worry. All silly ideologies have similar problems. Damn humans won't fit even when you hack them into shape.

Tolerism (tm) Is only required to tolerate peaceable actions. Revealing national security secrets to our enemies is not a peaceable act.

And Libertarianism has no problem with the use of force, only with the INITIATION of force or fraud, and Snowden certainly committed fraud in furtherance of force by violating the contractual agreement he had with the United States, and yes, the United States can hold the employer responsible if they failed in some duty, but they can also hold Snowden responsible because he PERSONALLY signed agreements to keep the information confidential.

[Audley Strange]

Tolerism (tm) Is only required to tolerate peaceable actions. Revealing national security secrets to our enemies is not a peaceable act.

I'm sure you don't consider the European media your enemy, or the fine nations within. Russia then? Some jihadists?

If what he says has no merit and was known about (if not publicised widely) what secrets has he revealed exactly to which enemies? His intent may well have been patriotic in attempting to expose what he saw as authoritarian. Is not alerting the public at large to potentially tyranny not a peaceable action? No one was going to just take his word for it without evidence were they? It's not like he blew up a building filled with feds.

And Libertarianism has no problem with the use of force, only with the INITIATION of force or fraud, and Snowden certainly committed fraud in furtherance of force by violating the contractual agreement he had with the United States, and yes, the United States can hold the employer responsible if they failed in some duty, but they can also hold Snowden responsible because he PERSONALLY signed agreements to keep the information confidential.

Well that rather depends on both the contract the U.S. made with his company and the one they had with him. However I'll concede that if they consider his actions criminal his signature on employment documents is irrelevant.

[Mysturji]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

[Seth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126

I'm with the House Republicans on this. One of the prices of liberty and freedom is the assumption of certain risks because the consensus is that freedom from government scrutiny and intrusions is worse than the risk of terrorist attacks that invasive spying upon the general public purports to prevent.

Quite frankly I'd prefer less NSA and more civilian-carried guns...like Israel...so that the citizenry has the means, as a group, to take down terrorists when they make attempts to terrorize people.

My privacy is ALWAYS more important to me, absent a credible and verifiable threat, than are the cowardly feelings of people who will sacrifice all their liberty and privacy for a little illusory safety. Just like handguns, the government doesn't get to infringe on my right to free speech and privacy just because it decides it needs to do so. It must have my permission to do so.

[Mysturji]

Still no reply yet from Ian, I see. Fair enough. It was a loaded question, and I'm sure he wants to consider his response very carefully. Especially considering the NSA will be reading it just as carefully.

Anyway...

We have hundreds of Congressmen, and one of them would have run with this. A Republican Congressman wanting to make Obama look bad, for example.

My point here is that Snowden was clumsy and oafish in his outing of the material.

Very clumsy, I agree. While he did the right thing, he obviously hadn't thought it through.

His choice of destinations so far has been... strange.
Apart from heading straight to Ecuador before spilling the beans, what would you suggest?

I'd start with a Congressman that wanted to make headlines and could afford protection.

Only one congressman? Your trust in the government is cute. You win a puppy. His name's Cujo!
Having thought about it (assuming I'd have the courage to do so - I like to think so) Here's what I'd do:

1. Choose my destination: Somewhere warm and sunny without an extradition treaty, and preferably without too much of a language barrier - English, French or Spanish.
2. Book a holiday there.
3. Send the evidence to EVERY congressman, both by mail, and by registered courier (DHL, FedEx, whatever)
4. Same day as 3, get on the plane to my chosen destination.
5. Arrive at destination, send email containing the same evidence as in 3 to EVERY congressman.
6. Enjoy the sunshine for a few days, keeping an eye on the news.
7. (if necessary) If the shit hasn't hit the fan after 3 or 4 days, forward that same email to an international selection of English-speaking (English-printing? ) newspapers.
8. Apply for asylum in my current country of residence.

[Tero]

Osama flew into skyscrapers. Or was it Obama?

Congress passed the Patriot Act. You voted for that congress. If you didn't vote, you have no reason to complain either.

It's your Gubment. Fix it.

[Mysturji]

Not my gummint.
I'm just an interested observer.

[Warren Dew]

Still no reply yet from Ian, I see. Fair enough. It was a loaded question, and I'm sure he wants to consider his response very carefully. Especially considering the NSA will be reading it just as carefully.

Anyway...

We have hundreds of Congressmen, and one of them would have run with this. A Republican Congressman wanting to make Obama look bad, for example.

My point here is that Snowden was clumsy and oafish in his outing of the material.

Very clumsy, I agree. While he did the right thing, he obviously hadn't thought it through.

His choice of destinations so far has been... strange.
Apart from heading straight to Ecuador before spilling the beans, what would you suggest?

I'd start with a Congressman that wanted to make headlines and could afford protection.

Only one congressman? Your trust in the government is cute. You win a puppy. His name's Cujo!
Having thought about it (assuming I'd have the courage to do so - I like to think so) Here's what I'd do:

1. Choose my destination: Somewhere warm and sunny without an extradition treaty, and preferably without too much of a language barrier - English, French or Spanish.
2. Book a holiday there.
3. Send the evidence to EVERY congressman, both by mail, and by registered courier (DHL, FedEx, whatever)
4. Same day as 3, get on the plane to my chosen destination.
5. Arrive at destination, send email containing the same evidence as in 3 to EVERY congressman.
6. Enjoy the sunshine for a few days, keeping an eye on the news.
7. (if necessary) If the shit hasn't hit the fan after 3 or 4 days, forward that same email to an international selection of English-speaking (English-printing? ) newspapers.
8. Apply for asylum in my current country of residence.

We don't actually know that Snowden didn't do this - within the constraints of where he could vacation.

The congressmen who care already know this information - it has been presented to them in secret briefings. The problem is that they aren't allowed to talk about those briefings, since they are secret. At best, they can ask public questions like the "spying on millions of Americans" question that the NSA chief lied in answer to.

Sending them this information privately won't help. Congressmen can only act on it once it becomes public. That's why giving it to select reporters was exactly the right thing to do.

As for ending up in a safe asylum, requiring that one face no consequences for crossing the government may not be a realistic expectation. That's why we don't see these kinds of revelations more regularly - for them to be revealed, people like Snowden have to put getting the truth out above their own personal welfare.

[Warren Dew]

Osama flew into skyscrapers. Or was it Obama?

Congress passed the Patriot Act. You voted for that congress.

To the contrary, I voted against that congress.

Unfortunately, one vote isn't enough, which is why we discuss these thing on fora like this.