NSA spying - When is the line crossed?

[peter grimes]

I know it's not hypothetical - that's why I posted

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...id-agencies-german-government-eu-commissioner

• Leigh Daynes, UK executive director of Médecins du Monde, said he was "bewildered by these extraordinary allegations of secret surveillance. Our doctors, nurses and midwives are not a threat to national security. There is absolutely no reason for our operations to be secretly monitored."

• Another target, Nicolas Imboden, the head of an NGO that provides help to African countries, said the spying on him was "clearly economic espionage and politically motivated".

Yep, better see who those midwives are texting! Otherwise the tirrrishts have won!

Tell me again how Snowden is a traitor?

 

[Zelig]

Tell me again how Snowden is a traitor?

Anyone who doesn't agree with the current administration is a traitor.

 

[peter grimes]

I think it's more like "anyone who speaks out against the perfection manifest in USA#! is a traitor"

We've been indoctrinated since the first day of school that we're the greatest country on earth, that we're free while everyone else isn't, that our 'democracy' is best democracy, that Pentagon uber alles.



Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Borachio]

So... national pride runs counter to critical analysis?

 

[bhsup]

No. It's because he went beyond detailing abuses by the NSA against Americans here in America. Had he limited it to that, I'd have been fine with him. But no, he didn't stop there. He went on to tell foreign powers about actions against them and their citizens.

EDIT: Also, update...

NSA surveillance lawful, judge rules

A US federal judge has ruled that mass government surveillance of the phone network is legal, a week after another court said the opposite.

This NY judge is a moron....

"Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit.

"Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.

"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks."

I cannot think of anything in the Constitution that could be interpreted to mean, "Because citizen does X willingly with a company means the government can do Y without consent."

 

[Borachio]

And those foreign powers that the US had acted against included American "allies"?

 

[bhsup]

Sure, why not? They're foreign, allies or not. Now, as I said in the OP of this thread, I think spying directly on the phone of the head of your government is going too far just from a courtesy level, but that's about it.

 

[Borachio]

I'm confused. Does this mean you were OK with Watergate?

 

[bhsup]

I'm confused. Does this mean you were OK with Watergate?

"were" denoting how I felt about it at the time when I was... 5?

Just kidding. No, I am not cool with people breaking and entering into a place they have no right being, rifling through papers they have no rights to and so froth. Mind you, that was all domestic on American soil. Do I have an issue with a spy breaking into The Admiralty and stealing some sensitive information? Well, that depends. The UK being our ally, we'd better have a -damned- good reason to do it, but it isn't something I would just say "nope, we cannot ever do that." Course, if you catch the spy, that sucks for us and I don't expect you to go lenient on him just because we're allies.

 

[peter grimes]

So... national pride runs counter to critical analysis?

No. It's because he went beyond detailing abuses by the NSA against Americans here in America. Had he limited it to that, I'd have been fine with him. But no, he didn't stop there. He went on to tell foreign powers about actions against them and their citizens.

It would appear to be so.

I look at it the other way around - that it's perfectly reasonable for one nation's government to try to spy on another nation's government, but wrong for a government to spy on citizens - of *any* nation without a very good reason to do so. "Terror" is not a suitable justification for the blanket invasion of privacy that the NSA has been guilty of against citizens.

And, of course, we now find out that much of the NSA's haul has been corporate espionage. So we have a program that's sold to the congressional overseers as being "for the protection of our citizens", that program invades the privacy of its own citizens, breaks into the private corporate property, conducts espionage against foregn companies...

None of this would be public without a certain whistleblower coming forward... And yet Snowden is the bad guy???

 

[bhsup]

Yes, because he...crossed...the...line! I would be the first to sing his praises had he stopped before getting into disclosures of foreign operations. Good deeds done don't get to erase bad deeds.

 

[Zelig]

Sure, why not? They're foreign, allies or not. Now, as I said in the OP of this thread, I think spying directly on the phone of the head of your government is going too far just from a courtesy level, but that's about it.

So how would you feel about a PRC spy defecting to the US (Or Switzerland or whatever, though I don't think it matters to the hypothetical) and exposing details of a massive PRC surveillance program aimed at American civilians?

Edit: And should any government outside of the USA or the PRC treat these cases differently?

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, why not? They're foreign, allies or not.

If data is property, are you okay with the US government infringing on the property rights of foreigners? If you still do think it's morally acceptable, do you think infringing on the property rights of foreigners is helpful to the US economy or American businesses operating internationally?

Also, if data is property, is it okay for an individual to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in defence of their property?

 

[bhsup]

So how would you feel about a PRC spy defecting to the US (Or Switzerland or whatever, though I don't think it matters to the hypothetical) and exposing details of a massive PRC surveillance program aimed at American civilians?

Edit: And should any government outside of the USA or the PRC treat these cases differently?

I'd feel fine about it. Do you honestly expect me to care about foreign governments as much as my own? Turning a spy is usually quite beneficial to America, so yeah great. I couldn't care less how the PRC would feel about it.

If data is property, are you okay with the US government infringing on the property rights of foreigners? If you still do think it's morally acceptable, do you think infringing on the property rights of foreigners is helpful to the US economy or American businesses operating internationally?

Also, if data is property, is it okay for an individual to exercise their 2nd amendment rights in defence of their property?

I'm not sure what you're asking about here. Are you talking about using our intelligence services for corporate espionage? I think that's kind of a stupid waste of resources and don't think we should really be involved in it, but it isn't something that would get me all riled up.

As far as foreigners "exercising 2nd amendment rights" I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment had any bearing on foreigners (assuming you mean foreigners not in America at the time??)

 

[Zelig]

I'd feel fine about it. Do you honestly expect me to care about foreign governments as much as my own? Turning a spy is usually quite beneficial to America, so yeah great. I couldn't care less how the PRC would feel about it.

Well this view is internally consistent, but if the view you hold is "screw all the foreigners" I'm not really sure what the point of discussing it with foreigners is.

 

[peter grimes]

Yes, because he...crossed...the...line! I would be the first to sing his praises had he stopped before getting into disclosures of foreign operations. Good deeds done don't get to erase bad deeds.

As you must realize by now, I find this to be an incredibly narrowminded view. To me this is missing nearly the entirety of the importance of the revelations, instead focusing on a small detail that was already acknowledged. It was already known that the NSA's mission was to collect communications on foreign targets. Snowden confirming this isn't really news at all.

So the way I see it, to use the Watergate analogy, you're saying "Duh, Republicans don't like Democrats!", while everyone else around you is saying "Umm, they hired thugs to break into a hotelroom, tap the phones, record the conversations, and blackmail people, and yet you're still saying "Well, they don't like them! What do you expect!"

I know that's a gross paraphrase of your position, but that's how it comes across to me. I honestly think this is an event that will have longer-lasting impact than the re-election of Obama. So I hope you can understand why I'm taking so much time to respond directly to your perceived hang-up on the whole 'crossed frontier' thing.

 

[bhsup]

Believe me, I get what you're saying. What he did was HUGE, I don't deny that. But he... I mean he betrayed his country which also happens to be my country. That's not a trivial thing. Okay... look at it this way because I view it as about this severe...

Snowden one day saves a little girl from drowning. HERO! PRAISED! Next day, rapes and murders girl's mom at their home where they were treating him to dinner. YOU may think that's a gross exaggeration, but that's comparable to how I view it. The fact that he saved the girl the day before is totally immaterial now because of the what he did the next day.

 

[Grisu]

Snowden one day saves a little girl from drowning. HERO! PRAISED! Next day, rapes and murders girl's mom at their home where they were treating him to dinner. YOU may think that's a gross exaggeration, but that's comparable to how I view it. The fact that he saved the girl the day before is totally immaterial now because of the what he did the next day.

It's more like he saw a murder/rape happen and instead of reporting it to the authorities he runs to the press (because the rapist is the police chief or something) at least that's not exagerrated more than your version

 

[peter grimes]

Yeah, I hear you - we see it precisely opposite from each other

Fair enough. But one last point - the USA is my country, too. And I expect it to behave better than other countries. Why, after all these years of being disappointed, do I not change that expectation? I'm likely an idiot. Or an optimist. Or both

EDIT: by Grisu, but he nailed it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Believe me, I get what you're saying. What he did was HUGE, I don't deny that. But he... I mean he betrayed his country which also happens to be my country. That's not a trivial thing. Okay... look at it this way because I view it as about this severe...

I read this while bearing in mind that any unauthorized revelation of the secret aspects of government is considered to be a betrayal whether it is about foreign or domestic affairs. Edward would be no less a snitch if he only discussed what the US government does to its own.