[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.

[Nullabillity]

As opposed to American hackers hacking American companies? Nationality has nothing to do with it, other than with jingoistic profiteers and/or morons who want a vaguely defined distant target to blame.

[nickpsecurity]

Law enforcement deals with that. NSA is part of the military-intelligence complex. We keep the two separate.

[MichaelBurge]

That's outside the scope of NSA's mandate. The NSA should not be using their resources to target American hackers or companies.

We should deal with such hackers too, using agencies like the FBI. I guess the NSA could provide some technical advice, but no more than that.

No evidence on American hackers should be classified or secret, unless they target government or military(and even then, the only thing that should be supressed from the public court record is the actual classified records that they stole, or details about the vulnerability they used). However, evidence the NSA gathers on foreigners and techniques they use could be classified.

The President should not intervene with diplomats if an American hacker hacks an American company.

I think these make the two situations very different in practice.

[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.

[Nullabillity]

> 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.

Where does the line go for who is to be considered "other"? As someone living in Stockholm, why should I care more about companies in Gothenburg doing well than a company in Oslo? Or am I an outsider as well, since I have a mother from Copenhagen?

> The existence of them in many democracies for good reason show otherwise.

No, that just shows that they're not actual democracies either.

> 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.

Okay, this is getting far into Poe's law territory.

[nickpsecurity]

"Where does the line go for who is to be considered "other"? As someone living in Stockholm, why should I care more about companies in Gothenburg doing well than a company in Oslo? Or am I an outsider as well, since I have a mother from Copenhagen?"

Your wishes don't matter at all. You're not a competing nation referred to in my comment.

"No, that just shows that they're not actual democracies either"

Or that you don't know what a representational democracy is or think they all think like you. Look up KSI where you live to find something even less transparent than our NSA. (shocking really)

"Okay, this is getting far into Poe's law territory."

Nah, it's just a prerequisite for existence of a thing you're pretending to know about. Successful democracy and active citizenry go hand-in-hand. Without it, problems emerge.

[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.)

[nickpsecurity]

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

There's some overlap between the two although I don't mean it in a strict, technical sense so much as betraying his country to its enemies with criminal action. Espionage is spy activity, often moving information. His actions mostly fall into that. Treason concept often includes aiding and abeitting enemy military. A significant part of that today are the cyber commands on various sides. He certainly gave our enemies a heads up about what we were doing while giving us no such advantage on them. That can be construed as treason given what effect it would have if war broke out.

Note: Apparently didn't help North Korea any during Sony response. ;) So, effect on wartime capability is debatable. I'd say espionage charge for legal leaks at the least with a deal (maybe immunity) due to legit whistleblowing.