[lesuorac]

> it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state.

There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping.

There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies.

FISA [1] isn't a private law either.

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

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

Note: 2006 (Klien) predates 2013 (Snowden)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

[roenxi]

There was something substantially new after Snowden though - prior to his leaks if you pointed out what the US government was likely up to people would laugh at the idea and ask for more sources. Afterwards they tended just accept it.

There was a big cultural shift from the default assumption in polite company being "They're spying on Middle Easterners" to "they're spying on everyone, everywhere" when talking about US spying.

[simoncion]

> There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping.

Laws which the telecoms were knowingly and willfully breaking for years.

You do remember that Congress gave them retroactive immunity? [0][1] You do know that this was only granted because people COULD sue (and were suing) them because of the information made public by Snowden and others?

[0] <https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-tele...>

[1] See Title II of the this bill <https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304>

[Clubber]

>There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...

[lesuorac]

You are dense. Imagine a government authorizes 10B for a bridge and then in 5 years a bridge shows up.

Now instead, imagine in 1978 [1] a government authorizes "United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil" and in 2008 [2] amends it to not be a big deal if they're foreign or not and then 5 years later it turns out they're doing just that.

These bills are not secret. Were not secret. Have never been secret. It's not my fault you didn't read them but it doesn't make Snowden novel.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

[Clubber]

>You are dense.

Well, maybe you're one of those propagandists. If you can't attack the idea, attack the person, right?

Hand waves, nothing new to see here, carry on.

The bills aren't what were exposed, it was more the techniques and scope. Like PRISM and XKeyScore and circumventing laws by sharing intelligence on US citizens with allies who aren't restricted by US laws. Spying on allied governments, etc. You know, that stuff.

You should really click on the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...

[dialup_sounds]

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

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

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

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

Et cetera. These aren't new issues. The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.

[Clubber]

>The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.

Damn the gall, give it a rest. Again, methods and scope. Which one of those exposes PRISM, XKeyScore and the NSA infiltrating Google servers? Which one of those exposes the companies that willingly "integrated" with the NSA?

Which of those exposes US government spying on allied governments, recording private conversations, etc?

Saying Snowden didn't reveal anything is a silly hill to die on. What is your prerogative in minimizing the exposure? Do you work for one of the companies implicated in participating in prism or something?

Microsoft joined PRISM on 9/11/2007 (fitting)

Yahoo joined PRISM on 3/12/08

Google joined PRISM on 1/4/09

Facebook joined PRISM on 6/3/09

YouTube joined PRISM on 9/24/10

Skype joined PRISM on 2/6/11

AOL joined PRISM on 3/11/11

Apple, the last holdout on the list, joined PRISM 10/12 (after Jobs died).

OP, this is why it seems nobody cares, there's plenty of people trying to sway public opinion on the matter by minimizing it. Nobody wants to believe their government would do things like this, so when someone offers that, "hey it's not so bad," they want to believe it. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[dialup_sounds]

Weird take. You have all these aspersions to cast on me and saying I'm trying to "sway public opinion by minimizing" when I'm literally telling one person to learn more about these subjects so they'll be less ignorant.