[nickpsecurity]

"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]"

That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opponents could counter a bunch of the legal stuff.

That's why he's both a whistleblower (illegal stuff) and a traitor (leaking legal stuff).

[sgnelson]

I would argue that's only true depending on where you stand. (and I mean that quite literally, as in Where are you from, what country do you live in?) If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them. That's certainly true in the US. And of course you'll argue that it was a US citizen reporting on US gov't affairs. But, isn't a whistleblower someone who believe they are serving the common good by uncovering illegal, immoral and unethical behavior? Can it not be argued that Snowden was helping out the countries (especially our allies) that there government and people were also being spied on? Or the fact that governments were making secret deals with each other: ("you spy on our citizens, which we can't do as it's illegal, and we will spy on your citizens, and they'll trade the information. And that way it's all legal!") (Who do they think they're fooling?)

If Snowden is a traitor, what does that make the NSA?

[nickpsecurity]

Now, this was the first, thoughtful reply I got in this. I'm addressing it last as it deserves a bit more thought. Let's look at the points.

" If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them."

It's true. An NSA proponent we shred on Schneier's blog made one good point: each country makes spying on everyone else legal for them but makes it illegal for anyone to spy on them. I call this The Game where they all gripe if they're getting spied on but keep doing it themselves for the benefits. Truth told, major nations have to do it just to break even or else they're going to loose contracts/territory to better equipped nations. NSA always claimed countering that sort of stuff was all they did at economic level with rest being political negotiations and self-defense against threats. I know, I know... ;) Yet, that probably-false claim is a good idea of what spying nations find acceptable in reality and don't do anything besides punishing individual spies as long as it's within the unspoken rules of the game.

"But, isn't a whistleblower someone who believe they are serving the common good by uncovering illegal, immoral and unethical behavior?"

Yes. The Panama Papers, Pentagon Papers, Snowden's leaks of unconstitutional behavior, Snowden's foreign leaks of destroying an ally's telecom (Belgium)... these kinds of things are illegal and abusive to the point they should be leaked. Key factor is they go against what country's citizens has deemed acceptable and endorsed. We're fine with them recording chancellors, business negotiations, whatever to look out for us. Disrupting innocent parties, breaking their oaths to us, selling individual companies' secrets, and so on? Not part of any deal I was made aware of between U.S. voters and intelligence community.

"Can it not be argued that Snowden was helping out the countries (especially our allies) that there government and people were also being spied on? "

Reality: over twenty nations spy on us even stealing our I.P. for their nations' benefits and trying to rig foreign contracts. Many of them are "allies." It's just the real-world in action. They want us to not spy on them? Then they need to disband their own spy agencies or imprison anyone caught spying on us.

"you spy on our citizens, which we can't do as it's illegal, and we will spy on your citizens"

Very worth whistleblowing. I've called out NSA & GHCQ on that for years as have Brits I know. They can't collect info on their own. I don't care how many intermediaries they put between point A and B. Just tells me how guilty their intent was. :)

"If Snowden is a traitor, what does that make the NSA?"

I said Snowden is a whistleblower and traitor depending on specific leaks. This polarization people do is childish and unrealistic. People, organizations, are often a mixed bag. NSA is an organization that has many honest people working to get legal intelligence or more rarely protect us from hacking. It's also got its share of scumbags and illegal activity that betrays its oath to Americans and mandate. Reward the good, punish the bad, and increase accountability where needed. Always my answer.

[sgnelson]

we'll agree to disagree. But one last thing.

"Reward the good, punish the bad, and increase accountability where needed. Always my answer."

That hasn't occurred. All we've done is gone after one person who made us aware of what has been going on. Nobody from the NSA has gone to jail over what they were doing, nobody who told them to do it has suffered any real consequences. And increasing accountability? From whom? Congress? If anything, it's arguable that the NSA (and the entire US Intelligence system, down to the local police department) have gotten worse since Snowden's revelations, not better. But at least as a US citizen, I now know (with proof) what my government has been doing to me and "for me." I don't approve of those actions.

If Snowden is a traitor, we could do with a thousand more traitors like him in the US government.

[nickpsecurity]

I agree. They haven't done much of anything. It's a larger problem that led me to counter any claims that a technical solution would happen. Just slow it since it's a political problem involving apathetic voters and corrupt politicians. That has to change to counter this mess.

[cname]

In response to your last paragraph, what if an organization is more good than bad and the bad they do is really bad? Does it really matter if there are also good people working there? Even if you can argue that we need the good stuff the good people are doing, that doesn't make the organization redeemable. The worst part is that reasonable-sounding people will make statements like yours, which seems to provide cover for all the bad stuff... and business continues as usual.

[nickpsecurity]

"The worst part is that reasonable-sounding people will make statements like yours, which seems to provide cover for all the bad stuff... and business continues as usual."

The worst part is that people will read statements like mine without understanding that someone in those organizations ordered the bad stuff done. Probably a number involved in sustaining it and providing immunity for it, too. An organization with plenty of good people and neutral capabilities doesn't need to be eliminated over evil leadership if we can eliminate that leadership instead.

The NSA has already changed in a major way once under Hayden. He turned it from a totally incompetent group, in an organizational sense, into a SIGINT powerhouse tearing up all kinds of technologies. Binney and others noted they were pretty cautious to respect civil liberties for the most part. Post-9/11, they took the gloves off that since it was their orders from America to prevent another 9/11 via only methods (mass surveillance) they knew how. Everything bad followed and continues to as American people are divided over issue. NSA's own culture plays into it, too.

So, just need the country to give them a more reasonable mandate and put someone in power to switch gears to get their mission back into something sane. Plus, reduce, eliminate, or thoroughly audit mass surveillance operations.

[mindcrime]

He's not a traitor because a subset of the things he leaked were actually legal. In fact, the legal stuff may be more damning for the government, since there's even less justification for the government to avoid transparency and accountability for things are are legal.

Say the CIA spied on, oh, I don't know, Toyota. And they got some good designs for a new engine or fuel injector or something. Legal, possibly? OK.. now what happens to that information? Let's they give it to Ford, but not GM. One could rightly ask "why?" Was it because somebody at the CIA owns Ford stock? Or did somebody receive some under the table kickbacks? Other??? The public has a right to demand accountability in regards to these things as well.

And never mind the fact that the State shouldn't be engaging in industrial espionage for economic benefit in the first place. If Ford wants to hire spies, let them hire their own spies.

[nickpsecurity]

"He's not a traitor because a subset of the things he leaked were actually legal."

Strawman this time. You m are fun. He's a traitor because he leaked national secrets critical to ongoing operations that were legal and mandated. Further, Americans approved of NSA spying on foreign countries as they know it works both ways.

Hope you get it now. Violating classified info laws in a way that damages American ops but doesn't protect American rights. That's treason.

[mindcrime]

Where's the evidence that his info leaks actually damaged American ops? Oh, right, it comes in the form of testimony from the NSA, CIA, etc... and we all know they never lie.

Hope you get it now.

[nickpsecurity]

The spy agencies of foreign countries published all the details at http://are.youkidding.com. Go check it out for details.

Meanwhile, a rational perdon should assume that if (a) a major method/weakness for NSA surveillance is published then (b) defenders will start addressing that hole/weakness. Further, the proof of subversion for America, but not others doing espionage, means America took a huge financial hit as people boycotted its products.

The damage is real even if the spy agencies don't list each, classified example on their websites as you require. You can bet NSA is also adjusting tools and strategies to deal with it. Yet, they have to be feeling the pressure as encryption, air gaps, Tor, non-US software/hardware, FOSS vs their proprietary buddies, and so on across board in response to leaks. I mean, you cant simultaneously think the Snowden leaks are helping fight NSA surveillance while saying no surveillance losses resulted. That's hilarity of your position.

[mindcrime]

Right, so no evidence that Snowden's leaks hurt American ops. Sure, we can infer that the terrorists (or whoever) may have tweaked their opsec in response, but it's not like that will drive them to do anything that wasn't simply an opsec best practice all along. If the NSA was simply relying on people being sloppy (not using encryption, etc.) and that changed, well... that was inevitable over time anyway.

As for backdoors in routers, etc... again, it was always just a matter of time until that stuff got caught. And it's not like people haven't always suspected that they were doing that stuff.

And even if some small percentage of what Snowden leaked did harm US operations somehow... I'd argue that it was justified in light of the big picture, in regards to the illegal stuff. Finding out about mass surveillance of US citizens, etc., justifies any collateral damage the spook complex may have suffered, as far as I'm concerned.

[nickpsecurity]

"Right, so no evidence that Snowden's leaks hurt American ops."

The ops are classified so it's a bogus point anyway. You're requiring them to commit a felony to prove specific damage. Further, you've already dismissed anything coming from spy agencies as a lie. You've set that line of questioning up to be a fail no matter what they show you. The only exception I'm seeing is a 3rd party or foreign nation detects their ops, then reports on it. Kaspersky already did with Equation Group plus used Snowden leaks to show it was probably NSA.

Anyway, we don't need them to publish anything. Just answer quick question: do you believe that the Snowden leaks improved people's ability to resist NSA surveillance and increase privacy through technological responses? Does that include foreign businesses or governments? If so, then you are already admitting that it reduced NSA surveillance and impacted their operations. One follows the other logically. Either Snowden leaks had no effect on NSA spying, making him a fail outside of legal reform, or they did negatively impact NSA by disrupting their operations.

"even if some small percentage of what Snowden leaked did harm US operations somehow... I'd argue that it was justified in light of the big picture,"

He wasn't justified because he didn't have to leak it. That simple. He could've just leaked the ones that targeted Americans or showed gross abuse rather than a lot of what we already, as Americans, allowed NSA to do. Instead, he turned over everything to many foreign media.

Btw, do you remember why he did that? Did you ever read the reason? He gave two actually. One sheds a lot of light on whether he had to do this and just how heroic he really is.

[sqeaky]

Legality aside, those ongoing operation are Un-American and many reasonable people, perhaps a majority, in this democracy of ours never had chance to vote or have any say in their creation.

Then taking into account legality, many consider them a violation of the 4th amendment. And again such a policy was instituted without ever a public discussion in relation to the constitution.

Someone revealing such policy to the Democracy it was forced on can never be a traitor.

[nickpsecurity]

" those ongoing operation are Un-American"

Says who? A few of you keep saying that but it's un-American itself to let a tiny, anonymous minority determine what's right for whole country. What exactly is American? I think it takes a consensus or compromise from voting public to determine that.

"many reasonable people, perhaps a majority, in this democracy of ours never had chance to vote or have any say in their creation."

The intelligence services were created by elected representatives in response to a second, World War that killed tens of millions of people. They actually helped end the war sooner. Their existence and general goal, although not all specifics, were repeatedly accepted by Americans. Instrumental in helping us with Cold War. Yes, most of the voting public is fine with the existence of spy agencies going back decades. It was abusive activities that harmed innocent people here and abroad that we fought against. Not surveillance or actions that protected our interests or citizens, though. Almost no protest.

"Then taking into account legality, many consider them a violation of the 4th amendment. "

That's why they were supposed to spy on foreign countries. They don't have 4th Amendment rights any more than they have responsibilities to America under our Constitution. And, yes, there were public discussions about the existence of military and intelligence activities going back decades. Americans knew they existed and were fine with the concept.

Wait, maybe I made a mistake here assuming you're American given your comments. You may be a foreigner who never read a U.S. history book. My apologies if you were referring to your own country where people never had a choice. Americans, on other hand, chose spying repeatedly with a big chunk choosing domestic spying in restricted form. The latter were foolish but the former are matter of public record.

[dzdt]

Keep in mind that legal vs illegal is a completely different question than right vs wrong. Whistleblower protections need to extend to cover more than just exposure of illegal activites.

[nickpsecurity]

Exactly. The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. So, one American's opinion doesn't define right and wrong for whole country esp as many disagree with him. So, he was wrong for leaking legal stuff on top of it being criminal.

[cname]

> The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades.

I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying.

In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much.

[nickpsecurity]

"I'm sure you have a source for this assertion"

Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)

"I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much."

Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.

Now, with that backdrop, ask those people if they think we should have an intelligence service spying on those competitive "allies" and enemy nations. Mention that the alternative is to constantly be a victim of or behind those countries due to being in the dark with no spy agency. Which will they choose? I choose having a spy agency, using it for same purposes the rest do, and taking extra care to avoid it getting out of control or damaging.

[Nullabillity]

> Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)

As opposed to voting for who, exactly?

> Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.

Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though.

[nickpsecurity]

"As opposed to voting for who, exactly?"

Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence agencies that were forming. And probably the dissolution of or great damage to our country later given the leaders would be acting blind. But you'd have a chance.

"Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though."

We are talking about that kind of world. Are you saying there's no allies spying on us with potential economic/political results? Or that there's nobody that might threaten us? Both are ludicrous but such issues are at root of my claim that we need a spy agency. So, which do you reject?

[dragonwriter]

> Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior.

Pretty much all whistleblowing addressing illegal behavior will reveal legal behavior connected or related to, supporting, etc., the illegal behavior. So what?

[nickpsecurity]

That's two of you ignoring the point of what I said to bring up nonsense technicalities. Let me being you back to the real world.

In U.S., as in many countries, there exist intelligence agencies whose job is to get secrets out of foreign countries. This is legal. There's usually also laws that protect secrecy of those and other activities. In US, such classification applies by law unless it's a criminal act they're trying to conceal. Leaking that information is a felony that, depending on info, might also damage (i.e betray) the US. Leaking criminal activity that was classified is whistleblowing. Not only form but main form for this conversation.

Snowden's whistleblowing by leaking proof of illegal surveillance and perjury by government I don't dispute. However, Snowden also leaked tons of tools and activities dedicated to legal, foreign surveillance. What NSA was legally required to do and which he personally agreed to in case of stopping foreign hackers (eg China). Worst, he leaked it to news organizations in thd countries NSA was spying on.

So, far from your abstract reply, Snowden betrayed his country by leaking legal, mandated, acceptable-to-Americans operations. He didn't have to and shouldn't have. He also heroically blew whistle on dirty stuff. So, he's both a traitor and whistleblower on leak by leak basis. That simple.

[patall]

But again, that is only from your american perspective and under the assumption that he would have been treated fair if he had not leaked the "legal" stuff. Assume he had only revealed that the US spied illegaly on its own citizens, what incentive would there have been for other countries to grant him asylum? Pretty much none (even considering that even now they do not garant it to him). So this is kind of an insurance for him (together with other documents that he did not reveal but could if they tried to catch him).

[nickpsecurity]

"what incentive would there have been for other countries to grant him asylum?"

Depends on if Russia would still like to give him asylum for sole reason of pissing off America as they are right now. Anyway, you're changing the discussion from a heroic whistleblower to someone who will only blow the whistle if he has extra dirt specifically to get asylum. Much less honorable. Not even an option for most whistleblowers.

"So this is kind of an insurance for him (together with other documents that he did not reveal but could if they tried to catch him)."

No, it's not. He's guaranteed they'll throw everything they have at him by leaking everything. They were intercepting diplomatic planes for goodness sake. People tracking those torture flights indicated one showed up at a German airport he would've went through when they asked him to come in. They were possibly willing to black bag his ass. They don't usually do that even with likes of Manning.

No, he's in a really, really, bad situation. He has nothing further to leak as insurance per many interviews where he gave it all away so nobody could torture him for information. If he does, Russia almost certainly knows it already as a condition of his stay. He's literally choosing between being imprisoned in one police state or living in a police state that does 10x worse than what he leaked on the same topic.

His options would've been better if he leaked only domestic stuff, tried to play it stealthy, and maybe selectively leaked docs to the country he wants asylum in. Instead, he leaked it all out of conscience or whatever with global disruption & embarrassment for NSA. The rest is history.

[tripzilch]

Is attacking their allies inside their territories, breaking, entering, installing viruses and malware against the personal home computers of civilians in allied countries ... is that considered "legal" from a US point of view? Which is what they did to the completely innocent civilian sysadmins of a large Belgian telecom.

Was that US-legal to whistleblow? Was it US-legal to perform acts of cyberwarfare against allies? I mean we all know how the rest of the world feels about it.

You can try and draw a line between legal and illegal behaviour all you want. But that really means very little if that decision, what is legal and what is not, is made by a government/legal/intelligence system that gets away with anything because they are so powerful (torture, war crimes / ignoring the ICC ..). Maybe not a very respectable moral compass to orient oneself by, don't you think?

The so-called illegal parts of Snowden's revelations informed me that basically all my data that ever went over the Internet is considered completely fair game by the US, GCHQ and the other Five Eyes. Other US-illegal parts of Snowden's files told me that MY government is complicit, acting like a vassal state. As far as I understand, that last part is illegal to reveal from the POV of the US, cause it involves their secret intelligence missions and doesn't reveal illegal behaviour of the US Intelligence per se (just those of the Dutch Intelligence).

So please, could you repeat that, to my face?

Is there an actual moral reason why it's wrong to release those files? I believe not, but we could talk about that.

However, if you're going to pick right and wrong on this matter by what is legal and what isn't in the United States, then say it to my face: A non-US person is a second class person, even if they're allies.

You believe it is right for you to know whether your government is doing illegal things or overstepping boundaries in surveillance. But you also believe that I, tripzilch, as a non-US civilian do not have that very same right; to know that my government is doing the very same, a lot of it in service of the US government. Or all the surveillance done for economic espionage? Better keep a lid on it because it only screws over those second-rate, non-US people? The biggest problem with the way that we've been doing thing is, the more we let you have the less that I'll be keeping for me. Alright!

[nickpsecurity]

"Is attacking their allies inside their territories, breaking, entering, installing viruses and malware against the personal home computers of civilians in allied countries"

Yes as far as I know. It's also done by intelligence services in European countries especially France, Germany, and Italy. If they're doing it, so should we given the consequences of us being only ones without critical info or influence at negotiation table or in market. I'm for ending all of that crap between allies but it's unlikely to happen. If we stop, the Europeans won't as it's our I.P. they mostly steal. ;)

"Which is what they did to the completely innocent civilian sysadmins of a large Belgian telecom."

I mention elsewhere that this kind of reckless damage to allies is worth whistleblowing on. It's collecting actionable intelligence that benefits U.S. that's supposed to be their job. Also, it was GHCQ (Britain) that did that with U.S. providing the access. Blame should be partial.

" I mean we all know how the rest of the world feels about it."

Irrelevant. More relevant is (a) that many countries griping are actively involved in spying or abuse their own citizens; (b) what the hell are they going to do about it for all spying jurisdictions rather than just what U.S. is doing? U.S. is a superpower, as are spy-happy Russia and China. The other spy-happy countries are major, economic powers. Are all the countries of the world just going to boycott every product from every country with an intelligence service? Good luck if you try but I predict the hypocrites won't even try. Many are unjustly doing it to the U.S. but not other spying nations despite knowing same stuff is going on there. Mere politics.

Note: Nonetheless, I still recommend avoiding any strongly-spying jursidiction when creating a business where privacy matters. That list always getting smaller as only 3 countries weren't cooperating with NSA in Europe per one leak. Iceland, Switzerland, and forgot other one.

"So please, could you repeat that, to my face?"

All of your data that you send unencrypted over a public or semi-private line is up for grabs by anyone in between you and the recipient. That's correct. If you thought otherwise, you may be visiting us from an alternate universe where criminal hacking, war and espionage didn't exist.

"A non-US person is a second class person, even if they're allies." ""You believe it is right for you to know whether your government is doing illegal things or overstepping boundaries in surveillance.""

You are in fact a second-class person... per U.S. law... if you are a non-U.S. citizen that's not bound by U.S. law with no responsibilities to or presence in America. Just as your country, many of them actually, might treat me. Personally, I think our intelligence services shouldn't target you in any way unless they had evidence you were a threat to national security or our foreign policy. Yet, these laws were devised in period from WW2 to Cold War where all kinds of citizens in all kinds of countries, enemies and their trade partners, were worth targeting. Probably corruption on top of that. That's why they're so broad.

Quick question: Do Americans visiting the Netherlands have all the rights and protections of citizens of the Netherlands? I'm curious in how many countries this is true. Are their restrictions in your defense sector not allowing me to know things that might affect me or requiring source code to come from citizens of your country? Plus, does that country's laws allow their military or any intelligence agency to take action against foreigners that it can't take against locals? Also, what's the status of the Trusted Third Parties project I read on a while back that seemed like mandated backdoors for law enforcement? Sounds like a public version of some Snowden slides and recent FBI vs Apple case. I hope it never passed or was pretty limited.

"to know that my government is doing the very same, a lot of it in service of the US government. "

Smart you mentioned it as I was going to burn your for that. That your country is one of 9-Eyes goes back a bit and the arrangements get reported on periodically with no, real resistance. Wouldn't surprise me if their stuff was connected to STONEGHOST on top of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

"Better keep a lid on it because it only screws over those second-rate, non-US people? "

It only keeps an eye on them, their governments, and their businesses to ensure they're not breaking rules that keep global economy going or doing anything directly threatening. That's what they're supposed to be doing. I'm fine with that as I know us pro-human rights people will get outvoted without a compromise given all the nations, including yours, doing spying.

Yet, I don't see how you're getting screwed over if a NSA system temporarily has your info or an analyst looks at it to determine if you're a terrorist or bribing foreign governments. Your life would've gone on without any effect if Snowden didn't leak. So, it's a privacy violation but not "screwing" your life over in any way. Such strawmen are great for political posturing but are as honest as Keith Alexander testifying pre-Snowden. Stick with the truth and less drama if you want to have an effect. Plus, Americans who might have backed you will just laugh when you tell them how the NSA destroyed your life because... surveillance existed but they did nothing further. They might think Europeans in general are that foolish & dismiss further claims.

[themartorana]

Revealing legal but highly offensive/suspect behavior does not make one a traitor.

[nickpsecurity]

Offensive/suspect to who? Americans and most countries in the leaks condone spying so long as they're the spies. Spying is legal here. Americans imllicitly support it by how they react to media on it.

So, yes, leaking it makes you a traitor. Especially if you're a trained US spy who did it youself.

[chapium]

Snowdens role in exposing the rubber stamp fisa courts may be exposing something legal, but clearly broken.

[nickpsecurity]

Lol what you talking about? That the only leak you read?

I'm clearly talking about all the foreign, classified operations that were both legal in US and whole reason NSA exists. He had no need to leak them to protect Americans' Constitutional rights.

[sgnelson]

So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional ("Hey, John Yoo said it's okay to spy on our own people and torture people, then it must be!") that you should not report the fact that its being grossly abused in a way that it was never intended to be?

If no one knows that our constitutional rights are being violated because of secrecy, it doesn't mean that they're not being violated (ironically, this is what the government has been using as a defense now for a while when people try to sue over the NSA: You have no proof we are spying on you specifically, so you can't sue us.)

The comment above you makes an excellent point. Just because behavior is deemed legal, does not make it so.

Also, Snowden was no lawyer. Who determines which behavior was legal and which wasn't? Obviously the US government and the NSA believed that everything they were doing was on the up and up (and obviously this was not so.)

Do you think that Snowden should have hired an entire law firm to go over every single file to deem whether or not each and every document either supported illegal and legal behavior by the government? (Which is somewhat what he did by giving all the documents to reporters to vet and disclose what they thought was important)

[nickpsecurity]

"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional"

That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuff, not gross abuses, not anything like that. Just that they develop tools and capabilities to spy on foreign countries for America's interests. Aka, their job and one that's legally a state secret.

" Just because behavior is deemed legal, does not make it so."

It actually does. The whole concept of a legal system haha. However, I'm allowing for activism against abuses. It's why, as above, I'm talking about all the stuff he leaked that Americans were fine with and endorsed as legal. Even celebrated in "patriotic" films.

"Obviously the US government and the NSA believed that everything they were doing was on the up and up (and obviously this was not so.)"

Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about.

"Do you think that Snowden should have hired an entire law firm"

Jesus. You're really grasping at straws and blowing up the hypotheticals. He claims to read each document at one point. No, all I expect is a simple question asked on each one: does it fall within their legal mandate or is it evidence of unconstitutional, deceptive activity against Americans in violation of the Constitution, their mandate and claims? That simple. Would've kept the leaks to just what America collectively would've had a problem with. Instead, the fool leaked all the legal stuff, too, giving right-wingers the excuse to dismiss him entirely as a traitor. Lots of lost votes for reform.

Also, leaking our foreign secrets to foreign media and trusting them to act in our interests... wtf. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that was treason.

[Nullabillity]

> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about.

So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit.

Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed democracy.

[MichaelBurge]

Yes, we should spy on foreign countries and have an agency to protect ourselves from them. It's not abstract - China attacks us every day. I don't want Chinese hackers breaking into American companies and stealing their secrets, and trust the NSA to do their job on this.

They should work with the FBI to inform companies of foreigners causing trouble with their systems. And they should develop secure protocols and encryption for the benefit of the government and public. Any NSA-collected data should be inadmissible in any court, and they should not be backdooring encryption. They also shouldn't collect any data from purely US-internal networking. On that point, it would be great if packets with start and end points within the US were virtually guaranteed to stay within the US when being routed, but I don't know enough about internet infrastructure to tell whether that's possible.

When Trump gets elected, I bet he'll take a more direct route here and just sanction them or disconnect their internet or something, which should put a stop to it. Then we won't need to rely on the NSA for defense as much.

[nickpsecurity]

"That's trite xenophobic bullshit."

On the contrary, it just recognizes the fact that nations with competing interests exist. Many of which spy on us for similar reasons. You'd have to be xenophile to justify doing no spying when even our allies are doing the opposite.

"Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed democracy."

The existence of them in many democracies for good reason show otherwise. Plus, we've had methods for detecting and correcting abuses for years. Requires a certain percentage of honest politicians and active citizens, though. That problem was actually created and sustained by democracy a la tyranny of the majority. They're doing it again with likes of Hillary and Trump.

[dragonwriter]

> Treason laws

At least in the US, Treason involves waging war against the US. I don't think there's anything wrong with treason laws in a developed democracy.

(OTOH, treason laws have nothing to do with Snowden; espionage laws might, but that's a different issue.)