Because American law guarantees certain freedoms and privacies and this was illegally trounced over. Despite what my avatar may lead you to believe, I'm not actually a terrorist, so I too am not worried about that part of it.kookaburrah wrote:I think people are mostly huffing and puffing for no reason - I find it hard to believe this comes as a surprise to anyone who doesn't live in a cave.
How can people think emails, phone calls and any other means of electronic communications are safe?
As a typical European [don't be fooled by the name], I am hypersensitive to anything to do with invasion of privacy. I didn't want to get a passion card because the application form has mandatory questions (such as income) which are personal and absolutely none of their business.
However, I do feel that monitoring communications is the government's business. I am also convinced that my emails and calls, silly as some may be, are of absolutely no interest to them. And consequently couldn't be any less bothered by the news.
zzm9980 wrote:
Because American law guarantees certain freedoms and privacies and this was illegally trounced over. Despite what my avatar may lead you to believe, I'm not actually a terrorist, so I too am not worried about that part of it.
However I would hate for this metadata to be correlated in the future with other systems for 'crime prevention'. In the US it's a short and easy leap to see this information being used only for national security to things like 'copyright protection' to even municipalities tracking your cellphone location for traffic citations.
On a related note .. but not so relevant ..zzm9980 wrote: However I would hate for this metadata to be correlated in the future with other systems for 'crime prevention'. In the US it's a short and easy leap to see this information being used only for national security to things like 'copyright protection' to even municipalities tracking your cellphone location for traffic citations.
Strong Eagle wrote:I like this.the lynx wrote:http://www.campaignforliberty.org/natio ... ndictment/
My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.
-Ron Paul
It is an interesting question on the boundary of morality vs conscience.PNGMK wrote:Apart from his hilarious game of "where's Snowden" it seems the US populace is very much against him....I'm not thrilled that he now seems to be in bed with that great Aussie self grandiser Assange but Snowden seems to have done the public a service.
If the over stuffers who worked for the Nazi's signed NDA does that protect them as well? Your analogy - that signing confidentiality agreements prevents one from having morals and acting on them is so wrong it baffles me. But what else would I expect from a landlord.JR8 wrote:It is an interesting question on the boundary of morality vs conscience.PNGMK wrote:Apart from his hilarious game of "where's Snowden" it seems the US populace is very much against him....I'm not thrilled that he now seems to be in bed with that great Aussie self grandiser Assange but Snowden seems to have done the public a service.
I think if you opt to work for a company, then you respect it's rules, privacy*, and so on: And if you can't you leave.
But if they are doing something that is of import regarding a wide public audience 'of the innocents', that so morally offends you, then, yes I think you would be in the [moral] right for it be known. But, in doing so you should be very clear of the consequences, and accept them, up to including you being 'rubbed out'. So, what price conscience?
* You can be sure he was signed up to confidentiality agreements to his eye-balls - and he's broken them.
A difficulty I see if that the US exists in the 21st Century, publicly bound by 250 year old values and promises (yer know, when 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was daily real-life)zzm9980 wrote: Because American law guarantees certain freedoms and privacies and this was illegally trounced over....
zzm9980 wrote: However I would hate for this metadata to be correlated in the future with other systems for 'crime prevention'. In the US it's a short and easy leap to see this information being used only for national security to things like 'copyright protection' to even municipalities tracking your cellphone location for traffic citations.
Exactly my thought! Can the ego and stick to the original message, or you'll lose the peoples' support.kookaburrah wrote:I agree, zzm. Mr Snowden is actually beginning to sound like a bit of a shit. It's difficult to remain sympathetic in the face of the crafty clever-clog antics he's been pulling - one Assange is quite enough thank you.
It's a pickle, that's for sure. I actually think the document doesn't need too many revisions, it just needs wise interpreters to use it as a guide for the public's best interests. In other words, someone morally opposite most US elected officials.JR8 wrote: A difficulty I see if that the US exists in the 21st Century, publicly bound by 250 year old values and promises (yer know, when 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was daily real-life)
The flip-side is how far do you trust the state to act in the peoples' best interests?
I know, but I don't mind it as I'm in the 'guest' mindset here. I live by their rules.JR8 wrote: They do all of this in Singapore [shrug]...
Spot-on!kookaburrah wrote:I agree, zzm. Mr Snowden is actually beginning to sound like a bit of a shit. It's difficult to remain sympathetic in the face of the crafty clever-clog antics he's been pulling - one Assange is quite enough thank you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests