NSA: "it doesn't count as a 4th Amendment search if we don't find anything!"
It's dumb, it's gross, but sadly it has been normalized -- if the Snowden leaks couldn't get the ball moving to rein them in, what can?
It's dumb, it's gross, but sadly it has been normalized -- if the Snowden leaks couldn't get the ball moving to rein them in, what can?
We're basically living the 1984 surveillance nightmare (remember the monitoring devices that lived in everyone's homes that were watching them?). The only difference is we've actually been duped to pay for the devices that spy on us and install them willingly. But it's soOoO convenient to ask Alexa "what's the weather like outside" (because sticking your head out the fucking front door is just, ugh, such a nightmare) or to save you from the unbelievably arduous and thankless task of having to flip a light switch with your finger.
Definitely worth it.
The CIA runs a global network of unaccountable torture prisons.
They once grounded (over Austria) and swatted the plane of a head of state flying from Moscow to Bolivia because they thought Snowden might be on it.
They don't use the power very often, but it is there when they want to, at any time.
Again, if the position is that the whole prosecution is unjust, a mockery of the First Amendment, chilling to journalism and free speech, then fine. But saying the US is responsible for the delay in putting him on trial is strange to me.
If one of our primary objectives as a liberal, democratic society is to avoid that kind of oppressive totalitarianism (as would be expected of a liberal democracy), then we have a duty to seek and employ the most effective strategy possible in avoiding that outcome.
Two things are required for the type of totalitarian surveillance described in 1984: the technological means and the will of the state to demand such evil acts be committed.
I'd argue that the best strategy to prevent an outcome that requires both means and will is to target the means. If the means exist, the state lacks only the will to utilize those means for evil ends (putting people in Room 101).
If the state lacks the means, then even once the will to do evil does inevitably come along, the state will be rightfully shackled and lack the requisite tools to enforce such tyranny.
Start a political party that has enough success to threaten the status quo. Be Assange. Be Snowden. Talk is cheap.
To our credit, we elected a man who promised to end spying on American citizens, but he ended up going back on is word and making it worse and no other presidential candidate since has spoken out against the NSA like he did.
Everything is encrypted now, even recipe sites.
For a chat program, the first question of even laypeople is whether it's encrypted or not.
I'd say some things did change.
But yeah, would be better to change the laws.
Things happened. Encryption went mainstream, particularly in tech. Some minor but meaningful limits on dragnet surveillance were passed.
Privacy has a problem of political nihilism. I worked on initiatives years ago. Simply getting people to show up to town halls led to endless bullshit about how America is hopelessly corrupt and why should they bother with a meaningless measure. Then the guys pushing a chicken farming bill show up and they all have flags and some are in costumes and they offer to petition and join the phone banks in her next campaign should she back the bill… Is there any reason for an elected to entertain the former?
Likely nothing.
We'll all likely be ruled by Rehoboam soon, if not already. Surveillance and manipulation of the masses has always been a presence in civilization. It's most effective when the masses don't know or care that it's happening.
So long as the watchers can keep the bread and circuses flowing, nothing will change.
(Of course, that does suggest we're merely an algorithmic breakthrough from something genuinely transformative).
I’ve seen cases thrown out for less
Like Cypher in The Matrix, who wanted his machine masters to reinsert him as a celebrity after his betrayal, Snowden's Russian masters made him into a celebrity after his betrayal.
However, every impression I have of Snowden is that he is patriotic to the USA, and that the sole reason he is in Russia now is genuinely because of the pressure that the government of USA put on every other government to turn him over.
Can be both. NSA contractor sees unethical secret programs, gets disillusioned and considers disclosing them, Russian SVR somehow picks that up and encourages him to do it, maybe promises him support, money, or refuge if he does. Everybody wins, except the US.
https://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-the-justice-system/edw...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-interview_n_54...
https://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/u_s_revokes_snowdens_passpo...
That's it. End of story. I remember reports that his likely ultimate destination was Venezuela or Guatemala, but these are distant, fuzzy memories, so they may not be correct.
Folks have made a _ton_ of hay out of the fact that Snowden ended up in Russia... but the truth of the matter is that he's there because the State Department stranded him there.
* The US State Department revokes Snowden's passport while he is in one or in transit between two foreign countries.
* If the passport is revoked while he is on the ground, Snowden is prevented from exiting the country, and is deported back to the US because the local government refuses to grant him a visa or grant him asylum.
* If the passport is revoked while he is in transit, Snowden is denied entry to his destination and denied transit back to his origin due to the revocation, his destination refuses to grant him asylum, and he is deported back to the US.
This would give them a perpetual character assassination tool, nearly free of charge.
This scenario is more complicated than the "bad timing" one, but it's no more complicated than yours.
You're right, it cuts both ways.
To go back to ben_w's comment though, I don't think we can make any conclusions about what Snowden is or who he's loyal to; he could be a a patriotic American, a Russian agent, just a guy who wanted to disclose unethical government behavior, or a mix of these things. All seem equally plausible to me, since I don't have insider info.
(Only thing there that fits is the recent demonstration of the Russian government acting like half-arsed movie plots are a good idea in real life).
A lot of papers suggested that the war incompetence was because Putin asked for support for his invasion, and the services knew their job was to get him that irrespective of reality. If there was any operation to take advantage of Snowden, it probably wasn't under such pressure, and I imagine the Russian services have some competent people that could pull it off.
But that's not what he wanted, and that's why he's in Russia, and why he was at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong for multiple days before he finally departed on a plane to Moscow [1]. He's a defector, so he's currently exactly where he wanted to be when he left.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-a...