re: Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden - NBC interview

quote:

---

I gotta admit, I'm a little surprised this is your take on all of this.

---

Actually, I do have serious concerns about domesticspying. I do believe there were safeguards in place, but, nevertheless, it's a good thing that light was shone upon what was going. The end result will be more protection of American's privacy. However, there are other ways Snowden could have accomplished his objective without putting legitimate NSA activities at risk and, by the way, causing unnecessary increased costs for private companies.

As far as disclosing tactics and information gathering involving foreign governments, I have no patience with the man. I desire a healthy, active and effective foreign intelligence service (which may, at times, require information gathering within the U.S.).

In this case, I wasn't joking about Snowden's narcissism and self-aggrandizement. He may mask it a little better than Julian Assange, but I think they're probably of the same ilk.

The root of the problem is that the conveniences we have become accustomed to like our phones and computers come froth with a consent which we all agree to when we agree to the license agreement. That agreement gives Google and all software companies the right to sell or share any and all information that can be gathered by the use of their software or our devices, even with the government. Thus, we have given consent to monitor our activites.

What snowden is saying is that senior officials are giving themselves authority beyond the scope of what is legal, in their use of this information gathering.

Imagine the power of unscrupulous Government Officials with this information. Can votes be coerced? Can peoples lives be ruined? Can the power be used to threaten ones opponents? There are no safegaurds. As it stands, it seems that any president of the united states, could use this vast power of surveillance to control members of congress, the USSC, and the military, not to mention anyone else who may disagree with the presidents agenda.

The Homeland security act had many of the intrusive elements as temporary and sunseting and congress kept renewing those provisions to where they have become permanent. This act alone has been the greatest detriment to our liberty and freedoms. It provides for a secret court and judge who gives blanket supeonas for mass survellience by the Agencies who make such request. I remember a time where it took a judical request and probable cause by any law enforcement agency, using a local court, in order to easedrop on anyone. We have become complacent as a people as to our liberties.

First and foremost, we must create laws that prevent the liscencing agreements we agree to within the software world from using our personal information from being used in the manner it is being used today. This should be based on our rights of privacy.

Secondly, The privacy encroachment elements of the homeland securtiy act that were sunsetting should expire, leaving only the coordinating aspects of agencies within the law in place.

quote:

---

I'm still curious as to why this "patriot" very publicly take his findings to the leaders of Congress, or, hell, even known sympathetic members of Congress, and let the chips fall where they may?

Why provide to foreign journalists and others while skipping town?

---

Well, in fairness, he claims to have sent multiple emails to oversight/IG. Got no response.

Then he watched Clapper lie his arse off in front of the Senate. Got no response.

So then he did what he did.

quote:

---

I do believe there were safeguards in place

---

What are these safeguards and do you know if they are test by some independent authority? Do you know if any innocent people have been harmed even when these safeguards were in place?

If Snowden's main concerns were the privacy rights and civil liberties of Americans, why did he leak so much information about the NSA's capacity for foreign intercepts? PRISM and the other domestic data mining programs are one thing; foreign intelligence collection is something completely different. Foreign intelligence collection - even targeting apparent allies - is completely within our rights as a nation. How does leaking this information help advance his goal of protecting the constitutional freedoms of Americans? Does he believe that the US does not have a right to covertly collect "Signals Intelligence" on foreign nations and foreign nationals?

quote:

---

Um, maybe I'm a nutjob here, but just because one CAN do a thing doesn't make it right. Our surveillance both within and outside of our borders is completely out of control. At some point, those calling us the "Great Satan" wont even be exaggerating.

---

So you're saying we shouldn't be intercepting foreign communications? If we disarm our capacity for signals intelligence, will the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, et al follow suit?

quote:

---

Foreign surveillance of hostile nations is one thing but surveillance of your own citizens who aren't involved in international commerce or policy is a completely different matter. Our government should not be spying on corporate executives in the US who are engaged in legitimate business endeavors.

---

I agree with this. We absolutely should be spying on foreign countries and I am sure they are doing the same to us. My biggest issue with Smowden is that he released info about foreign intelligence collection. I can guess that he leaked that info so that it would get international coverage and couldn't be buried in the US.