So as someone very interested in the subject, my time to shine I suppose.Well first, as the link is provided below, Binney clarified his comments. I like what Binney did and I think his heart's in the right place. But he's a bit of a nut job; I think he discussed 9/11 with Alex Jones. Tom Drake, who comes off as a bit more level headed, presented Snowden with an award.I think that the NSA needs to be massively reined in. Honestly, there's a legitimate argument for abolishing it....Were the programs exposed unconstitutional? Maybe. Personally, I think so. Some people use Smith v. Maryland to justify the programs, which is a legitimate argument. However, I've never found the Smith justification convincing. I believe it was Senator Mike Lee who said that comparing the one stalker in Smith having his number collected is like stretching a pony ride into a trip from the moon. I think the third party doctrine should be overturned. It's rather preposterous that people would still think we have no privacy with third parties when we basically store everything with them today.I strongly believe though that the NSA violated statutory law. Section 215 was not ample justification for the phone call collection, as the court in New York recently ruled. With 50 percent of data also acquired on Americans, it's hard to argue the NSA didn't intentionally intercept data on Americans, as the FISA Amendments prohibit.The programs first don't stop terrorism. As Bruce Schneier described in Data and Goliath, the dots that Hayden and others describe are impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to connect. That's why all that the NSA has to show for their program is some cab driver who donated chump change to a terrorist group.The programs are one of the major policy issues we face in my opinion. They are a direct threat to freedom of speech; to give an example, 1 in 6 journalists have considered self-censoring due to surveillance. Another 1/6 have considered it at some point. The surveillance has a history of being used on subversive thinkers, like MLK. Some of the NSA's activities included spying on Occupy Wall Street, which incorrectly, was viewed as a threat to national security.As for Edward Snowden, I appreciate what he did, but I don't think the whole thing should be about him. I think he should be pardoned. As seen with previous intelligence whistleblowers, there's really no channels to go through or you end up with guns in the shower like Mr. Binney.....Currently, the USA Freedom Act is a joke (and I'm very upset that my candidate, Bernie Sanders, showed he potentially supports it by voting for cloture, but to be fair you can't know for sure there). The specific search term section would actually give greater authority to the NSA. Congress should pass the Surveillance State Repeal Act instead, which gets rid of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments.
I'm very upset that my candidate, Bernie Sanders, showed he potentially supports it by voting for cloture, but to be fair you can't know for sure there.
Were the programs exposed unconstitutional? Maybe. Personally, I think so.
It's rather preposterous that people would still think we have no privacy with third parties when we basically store everything with them today.
The programs are one of the major policy issues we face in my opinion. They are a direct threat to freedom of speech; to give an example, 1 in 6 journalists have considered self-censoring due to surveillance. Another 1/6 have considered it at some point. The surveillance has a history of being used on subversive thinkers, like MLK. Some of the NSA's activities included spying on Occupy Wall Street, which incorrectly, was viewed as a threat to national security.
As for Edward Snowden, I appreciate what he did
. . .
Also, didn't the US Court of Appeals rule that the bulk collection of metadata was illegal only 3 weeks ago?
Well yeah, that's why I said illegal and not constitutional.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 01, 2015, 04:37:56 PMArticulable evidence that the phone numbers in question were in direct contact with known terrorist cell phone numbers. And to actually read a text, or see name or location data, or heaven forbid they tap a phone? Who knows? Source?
Articulable evidence that the phone numbers in question were in direct contact with known terrorist cell phone numbers. And to actually read a text, or see name or location data, or heaven forbid they tap a phone? Who knows?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on June 01, 2015, 04:37:56 PM. . . I love you.
Turkey, get in here
