FAQ
It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:41 am


Author Message
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:59 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
Law enforcement has to be allowed to gather some information without a warrant, just in case they might do so accidentally.

Shall we require them to wear nose plugs when they're out on patrol, so they don't smell the marijuana smoke coming out of someone's apartment window as they walk by?

This isn't a valid comparison, though. Walking or driving by and passively smelling pot smoke accidentally / by chance is hardly the same as intentionally data mining terabits of communications data from all global citizens with the express purpose of finding criminals, connecting terrorist social networks, and proactively preventing future attacks or loss of life.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:29 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
Law enforcement has to be allowed to gather some information without a warrant, just in case they might do so accidentally.

Shall we require them to wear nose plugs when they're out on patrol, so they don't smell the marijuana smoke coming out of someone's apartment window as they walk by?

This isn't a valid comparison, though. Walking or driving by and passively smelling pot smoke accidentally / by chance is hardly the same as intentionally data mining terabits of communications data from all global citizens with the express purpose of finding criminals, connecting terrorist social networks, and proactively preventing future attacks or loss of life.


So if the officer were intentionally looking for pot smoke, it would be bad? But if it's an accident that they smell pot smoke it's ok? How would an officer go about demonstrating in court that the encounter was purely accidental?

What if they're patrolling a neighborhood that is known to have lots of pot dealers? Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to expect they were going to encounter pot smoke? Doesn't that kind of border on deliberately seeking it out?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:32 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
So if the officer were intentionally looking for pot smoke, it would be bad?

It depends entirely on what specific steps they take to do so, much like this whole NSA issue hinges upon specifically what steps they're taking to acquire our data and specifically what they are doing with it once they have it.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:00 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
kojax wrote:
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
Law enforcement has to be allowed to gather some information without a warrant, just in case they might do so accidentally.

Shall we require them to wear nose plugs when they're out on patrol, so they don't smell the marijuana smoke coming out of someone's apartment window as they walk by?

This isn't a valid comparison, though. Walking or driving by and passively smelling pot smoke accidentally / by chance is hardly the same as intentionally data mining terabits of communications data from all global citizens with the express purpose of finding criminals, connecting terrorist social networks, and proactively preventing future attacks or loss of life.


So if the officer were intentionally looking for pot smoke, it would be bad? But if it's an accident that they smell pot smoke it's ok? How would an officer go about demonstrating in court that the encounter was purely accidental?

What if they're patrolling a neighborhood that is known to have lots of pot dealers? Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to expect they were going to encounter pot smoke? Doesn't that kind of border on deliberately seeking it out?


It's ok to patrol a public area known to be a hotbed for particular types of crime as long as they do not single out individuals by searching their personal property without just cause. Patrolling a public area and smelling pot coming from a particular residence, vehicle or person would give them just cause to search those individuals. However searching someone in that area just because they are in that area without any smell of pot emanating from their person or their private property into public areas would be a violation of the legal search and seizure laws.

I used to live in a really really depressed area of Saint Louis which was mostly populated by minorities, was well known for gangs, drugs and prostitution. About the only time you saw a Caucasian walking in this area was if they were selling drugs, hooking, or lost. I however lived there. Often my car wasn't running or my husband then, needed it during the day and so I took the city bus to work. I had to catch the bus about 4 am. So I would be standing at the street corner at 4 am every day and often a patrol car would stop and the officer would ask me who I was and what I was up to. I explained to them that I was waiting for the bus. That's a common alibi for prostitutes so I made sure to always have my uniform jacket on showing that I drove a bus for a company about a mile up the road. I always had my id with me and answered whatever questions they had. They never outright asked me for ID and unless I showed signs that I was committing a crime they couldn't. I had a couple of times where the cop sat until the bus came to see me get on it. But I didn't consider it harassment at the time, though some might have. For all I know, the officer may have felt I wasn't safe standing out there alone in the dark. But after a while the beat cops came to know who I was and expected to see me there every morning and usually made themselves regularly visible while I was there.

I would have been within my rights to decline a search and to refuse to show ID if they had asked. And refusing to do those things is not usually considered just cause to detain you. However if they decide to detain you, it would be your word against theirs as to how you were behaving. So they could easily claim I was acting twitchy or seen exchanging unknown items with what looked like a suspicious character. So if they HAD asked for ID I would have shown it to them. But my uniform and telling the my name and pointing out where I lived seemed to satisfy their reasonable, in my opinion, curiosity.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:23 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
If Snowden is so sure he did the right thing why is he so afraid of facing a jury of his peers? No doubt he would have a top notch lawyer paid for by his wikileaks friends. Let's hear the facts in court. He says he wouldn't get a fair trial. Bullshit. His wikilawyer would probably run rings around a government prosecutor. He's afraid the true damage he has done will come out.


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:44 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
bunbury wrote:
If Snowden is so sure he did the right thing why is he so afraid of facing a jury of his peers? No doubt he would have a top notch lawyer paid for by his wikileaks friends. Let's hear the facts in court. He says he wouldn't get a fair trial. Bullshit. His wikilawyer would probably run rings around a government prosecutor.



He may be afraid for his life. I'm not saying he should be, but there are plenty of people who believe the government can and will silence those who blow whistles on them. Even if it's the president himself blowing the whistle. This is just speculation however, and like you said, we should wait for the facts to come out rather than make accusation assumptions such as:
Quote:
He's afraid the true damage he has done will come out.


After all, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:33 am

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
Quote:
Quote:
bunbury wrote:
If Snowden is so sure he did the right thing why is he so afraid of facing a jury of his peers? No doubt he would have a top notch lawyer paid for by his wikileaks friends. Let's hear the facts in court. He says he wouldn't get a fair trial. Bullshit. His wikilawyer would probably run rings around a government prosecutor.

seagypsy wrote:
He may be afraid for his life. I'm not saying he should be, but there are plenty of people who believe the government can and will silence those who blow whistles on them. Even if it's the president himself blowing the whistle. This is just speculation however, and like you said, we should wait for the facts to come out rather than make accusation assumptions such as: He's afraid the true damage he has done will come out.


I guess he is afraid of facing a jury of his peers because, regardless of the moral propriety of his actions, the fact remains that technically he did break the law. Also, as seagypsy says, he may well fear for his life. No doubt the secret services do carry out crimes of their own, that for the most part go unseen or unrecorded, in order to remove the inconveniencies of government critics. Better to live a quiet life and hunker down and avoid all but immediate friends and family? I.e. don’t get into mischief.

_________________
gone also


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:59 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Who exactly do you think might kill him if he returned tot the USA to face his criminal charges?

Quote:
there are plenty of people who believe the government can and will silence those who blow whistles on them


Any examples of this having happened that might support this assertion?


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:14 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
bunbury wrote:
Who exactly do you think might kill him if he returned tot the USA to face his criminal charges?

Quote:
there are plenty of people who believe the government can and will silence those who blow whistles on them


Any examples of this having happened that might support this assertion?



You seem to have overlooked a huge portion of my post. I will quote the entirety of it again and bold the important parts that make it clear that I did NOT assert he would be killed.

Quote:
He may be afraid for his life. I'm not saying he should be, but there are plenty of people who believe the government can and will silence those who blow whistles on them. Even if it's the president himself blowing the whistle. This is just speculation however, and like you said, we should wait for the facts to come out rather than make accusation assumptions such as:


The only thing I asserted is that there are people who believe the government will have you killed. I would be glad to prove to you that people believe these things but I really don't want to put links to conspiracy theory websites on this forum.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
Neverfly
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:27 pm

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:19 am
Posts: 68

Offline
tridimity wrote:
In short, I misinterpreted your meaning.

I'm sorry Neverfly for making you feel frustrated.

An ice cold (Cold to the point where it's just about to freeze) Dr. Pepper will make things right, again.

Don't use Fed Ex; they throw packages and I don't want the can exploding in muh face when I open it.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:54 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
seagypsy wrote:

It's ok to patrol a public area known to be a hotbed for particular types of crime as long as they do not single out individuals by searching their personal property without just cause. Patrolling a public area and smelling pot coming from a particular residence, vehicle or person would give them just cause to search those individuals. However searching someone in that area just because they are in that area without any smell of pot emanating from their person or their private property into public areas would be a violation of the legal search and seizure laws.



So what if they were walking down the street with drug sniffing dogs instead of just using their own human noses?

I'm just curious where we draw the line. There are lots of ways to spy on someone without inconveniencing them. Some sound amplification devices may allow them to hear you talking through the walls of your house. Thermal imaging that can see you taking a shower through the walls (though the picture is really, really blurry and not in its normal colors.)

What if they sneak in at night while you're out and plant bugs? That would still not be an inconvenience.

bunbury wrote:
Who exactly do you think might kill him if he returned tot the USA to face his criminal charges?



Maybe he saw some particular individuals engaging in activities he's not be brave enough to talk about? It wouldn't be "the government". But those individuals might want to make sure he stays silent about what they were doing.

Most of the stuff he's complaining about seems very minor. However if he saw a corrupt agent making use of meta-information for personal profit, then he might be in some danger.


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:36 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
kojax wrote:
seagypsy wrote:

It's ok to patrol a public area known to be a hotbed for particular types of crime as long as they do not single out individuals by searching their personal property without just cause. Patrolling a public area and smelling pot coming from a particular residence, vehicle or person would give them just cause to search those individuals. However searching someone in that area just because they are in that area without any smell of pot emanating from their person or their private property into public areas would be a violation of the legal search and seizure laws.



So what if they were walking down the street with drug sniffing dogs instead of just using their own human noses?

I'm just curious where we draw the line. There are lots of ways to spy on someone without inconveniencing them. Some sound amplification devices may allow them to hear you talking through the walls of your house. Thermal imaging that can see you taking a shower through the walls (though the picture is really, really blurry and not in its normal colors.)

What if they sneak in at night while you're out and plant bugs? That would still not be an inconvenience.

bunbury wrote:
Who exactly do you think might kill him if he returned tot the USA to face his criminal charges?



Maybe he saw some particular individuals engaging in activities he's not be brave enough to talk about? It wouldn't be "the government". But those individuals might want to make sure he stays silent about what they were doing.

Most of the stuff he's complaining about seems very minor. However if he saw a corrupt agent making use of meta-information for personal profit, then he might be in some danger.


MY personal opinion is that if they are using some high end technology that is not treated as part of their general uniform or part of their regularly carried tools (such as a flashlight, gun, and handcuffs) and they are making extra efforts to peer into your personal space, then they are overstepping their boundaries. But in general, canines are treated as actual officers of the law themselves. They get funerals and everything. They put their lives in danger to protect us from criminals and save our lives and they are given almost equal respect as peace officers for that reason. Often a police officer is "partnered" with a canine officer. If these two officers are walking down your street and the one that happens to walk on all fours smells dope coming from your house, then they haven't violated any search and seizure laws. That is why they are allowed to have canine officers in airports, usually patrolling luggage areas and customs areas. But then I'm not sure if they consider an airport a public place or a government property. If it is government property, then by entering the airport you may be presumed to consent to searches. I would have to double check that. If that is the case, then that could be how TSA gets away with the invasive and degrading searching they do.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:25 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
So what if they were walking down the street with drug sniffing dogs instead of just using their own human noses?

Then it would be unconstitutional, as ruled by SCOTUS in Florida v. Jardines just three months ago on March 26.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/des ... _Opinion/1

seagypsy wrote:
That is why they are allowed to have canine officers in airports, usually patrolling luggage areas and customs areas. But then I'm not sure if they consider an airport a public place or a government property. If it is government property, then by entering the airport you may be presumed to consent to searches. I would have to double check that. If that is the case, then that could be how TSA gets away with the invasive and degrading searching they do.

This is exactly correct. Airports are (almost all) owned by the state, basically government owned, and hence are different than private property owned by an individual citizen like a house or bit of land where you hold the deed. Walking into an airport is more akin to walking into a court house or a tax office, not walking into your buddy Fred's place across the street.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:06 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
So what if they were walking down the street with drug sniffing dogs instead of just using their own human noses?

Then it would be unconstitutional, as ruled by SCOTUS in Florida v. Jardines just three months ago on March 26.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/des ... _Opinion/1



In the case you have quoted, the police took the dog to someone's front porch. The front porch would be private property and therefore unconstitutional. If the dog gave indication from the sidewalk or street that there was a positive scent of drugs coming from the direction of the home, the police could have called in for a warrant to search. And the dog giving indication would have been reason for probable cause wouldn't it?

But taking the dog to the porch before any reaction was given by the dog from the street would be unconstitutional. At least that's how I have always understood it. Am I mistaken?

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:05 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
I just realized the problem with this claim.

bunbury wrote:
If Snowden is so sure he did the right thing why is he so afraid of facing a jury of his peers? No doubt he would have a top notch lawyer paid for by his wikileaks friends. Let's hear the facts in court. He says he wouldn't get a fair trial. Bullshit. His wikilawyer would probably run rings around a government prosecutor. He's afraid the true damage he has done will come out.


Trouble is, quite a lot of the evidence he might want to present in court in order to show that his whistleblowing was justified is classified information. He would likely be denied the right to present it for that reason.

He may have had really good reasons, better reasons than he's even telling us (because he has been decent enough not to disclose anything that might blow an undercover agent's identity, or otherwise do genuine damage to national security.)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:38 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
seagypsy wrote:
In the case you have quoted, the police took the dog to someone's front porch. The front porch would be private property and therefore unconstitutional. If the dog gave indication from the sidewalk or street that there was a positive scent of drugs coming from the direction of the home, the police could have called in for a warrant to search. And the dog giving indication would have been reason for probable cause wouldn't it?

But taking the dog to the porch before any reaction was given by the dog from the street would be unconstitutional. At least that's how I have always understood it. Am I mistaken?

No, I think that's a good point, and probably correct. In this scenario then it's up to the judge to decide whether a warrant is... well... warranted. :)


Here's another take on the NSA / Snowden issue that I hadn't really considered. A good quick article below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... americans/

Quote:
These stories illustrate some of the kinds of misconduct that could occur with the NSA’s database of the nation’s phone calls. A record of every American’s phone calls and cellphone locations could be even more attractive to unethical government employees than the NCIC database. Jilted NSA employees could use the database to stalk exes. Corrupt NSA officials could sell information from the database to criminal enterprises. Voyeuristic NSA employees could browse through the database to learn about the personal lives of celebrities.

Indeed, the threat of NSA voyeurism is not just hypothetical.

<snip>

the FBI’s experience with the NCIC database suggests that a certain amount of abuse is inevitable any time the government compiles a database containing private information about millions of individuals. That’s a cost that needs to be weighed against the benefits of the NSA’s phone records database.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:40 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Quote:
Trouble is, quite a lot of the evidence he might want to present in court in order to show that his whistleblowing was justified is classified information. He would likely be denied the right to present it for that reason.


The judge has the option of having the jury hear and see evidence in secret, as was the case in a famous spy trial in 1985.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19860717&id=r8hGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QfgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=891,3103017

Whistelblowing refers to exposing people who have broken the law. As far as I am aware Snowden has not revealed any lawbreaking (except his own) so he is not a whistleblower. He is an alleged spy who has allegedly stolen classified information from the US and given it to foreign countries.

Quote:
Most of the stuff he's complaining about seems very minor. However if he saw a corrupt agent making use of meta-information for personal profit, then he might be in some danger.


If he saw that then he should indeed have exposed that lawbreaker and he would be a legitimate whistleblower. If he had such evidence why wouldn't he already have reported it? The suspect would be under arrest and Snowden would be in no danger.


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:49 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Quote:
The only thing I asserted is that there are people who believe the government will have you killed. I would be glad to prove to you that people believe these things but I really don't want to put links to conspiracy theory websites on this forum.


Then this is completely irrelevant to any serious discussion. We all know there are conspiracy theorists and paranoiacs around and your raising the issue that some people believe Snowden might be killed is a red herring.


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:49 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
bunbury wrote:
Quote:
The only thing I asserted is that there are people who believe the government will have you killed. I would be glad to prove to you that people believe these things but I really don't want to put links to conspiracy theory websites on this forum.


Then this is completely irrelevant to any serious discussion. We all know there are conspiracy theorists and paranoiacs around and your raising the issue that some people believe Snowden might be killed is a red herring.


In that case you missed my point entirely.

You asked why he would run and hide. I suggested a possible mindset he may have that would explain his fear.

If it was an intended rhetorical question to which you feel you already have a factual answer in your head and will reject any possible explanation other than the one you believe to be true, that is not my error, it is yours for making assumptions and rejecting other possible explanations.

A person's reasons for doing something do not necessarily have to be based on rational thinking.

I kid will get excited about getting new presents from Santa Claus if he believes in Santa Claus. His belief does not make Santa Claus real, but it does explain his enthusiastic anticipation.

I am trying really hard not to argue with you. But your attempts to negate my response simply because you don't like the answer is unwarranted.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:43 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
bunbury wrote:
Quote:
Trouble is, quite a lot of the evidence he might want to present in court in order to show that his whistleblowing was justified is classified information. He would likely be denied the right to present it for that reason.


The judge has the option of having the jury hear and see evidence in secret, as was the case in a famous spy trial in 1985.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19860717&id=r8hGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QfgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=891,3103017

Whistelblowing refers to exposing people who have broken the law. As far as I am aware Snowden has not revealed any lawbreaking (except his own) so he is not a whistleblower. He is an alleged spy who has allegedly stolen classified information from the US and given it to foreign countries.



So you think he might be whistleblowing to cover his own rear?

Like maybe he has sold more important secrets to a paying customer, and now he's out crusading in order to make himself a folk hero so the government can't prosecute him for his real crimes?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:04 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
So you think he might be whistleblowing to cover his own rear?

It's strange to me that you would ask this given that bunbury was pretty clear that he feels it's inappropriate to use the term whistleblowing in Snowden's case when he said this:

bunbury wrote:
Whistelblowing refers to exposing people who have broken the law. As far as I am aware Snowden has not revealed any lawbreaking (except his own) so he is not a whistleblower.

He obviously doesn't feel Snowden is whistleblowing at all, let alone to "cover his own rear."

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:13 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Maybe there's nothing illegal for him to report, but it's a great strategy.

1) - Sell some sensitive information to the Chinese (or whoever).

2) - Go on an internet wide tirade telling everyone about the evil NSA, claiming you're putting your life/career on the line, but you feel that you must expose the truth.

3) - When the government attempts to put you on trial for the sale of the sensitive information to China (or whoever), you claim they're just making up accusations to persecute you because you exposed the ugly truth about them to the public.

4) - Wait for various congressmen to start getting angry letters from constituents who think the whole thing is unfair.

5) - After you're acquitted and/or pardoned, go enjoy the money.


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:09 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
kojax wrote:
Maybe there's nothing illegal for him to report, but it's a great strategy.

1) - Sell some sensitive information to the Chinese (or whoever).

2) - Go on an internet wide tirade telling everyone about the evil NSA, claiming you're putting your life/career on the line, but you feel that you must expose the truth.

3) - When the government attempts to put you on trial for the sale of the sensitive information to China (or whoever), you claim they're just making up accusations to persecute you because you exposed the ugly truth about them to the public.

4) - Wait for various congressmen to start getting angry letters from constituents who think the whole thing is unfair.

5) - After you're acquitted and/or pardoned, go enjoy the money.


That's so sociopathic and weird he would almost deserve an award for ingenuity just for coming up with it and having the guts to try. Sad thing is, its actually possible.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:39 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
seagypsy wrote:
That's so sociopathic and weird he would almost deserve an award for ingenuity just for coming up with it...

Hmmm... What's that say about kojax then, since he DID come up with that? :lol:

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:48 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
iNow wrote:
seagypsy wrote:
That's so sociopathic and weird he would almost deserve an award for ingenuity just for coming up with it...

Hmmm... What's that say about kojax then, since he DID come up with that? :lol:


I'm jealous, I'm usually the creepy inventive one. If I wore a hat I would certainly take it off for Kojax. He should write a screen play with that as a plot.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
Neverfly
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:41 am

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:19 am
Posts: 68

Offline
Kojax, PM me, buddy. Let's talk business.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:15 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
I'm not thinking like he planned it that way from the start. Let me revise the steps to accommodate the stages of planning.

1) - He decides to sell some sensitive information to someone (like China).


I mention China because they actually do have a history of paying good money for sensitive information - though usually it's design specs for American airplanes and stuff rather than NSA type info.

Though... come to think of it, with all the cyber wars they've been fighting, and cyber spying, information about the NSA might be extremely valuable to them right now.

2) - He thought he'd covered his tracks but it turns out someone at the NSA figured it out and so now he's caught, but he's physically outside the country right now so they can't immediately arrest him.

He's now got three choices.
A) - Go into hiding, or to a country with no extradition and stay there the rest of his life.
B) - Defect to the country he just sold information to (not really a very appealing idea...)
C) - Try to find a way to avoid getting prosecuted so he can live the rest of his life in countries you'd want to live in.

So...step 3:

3) - He decides to go to the media and play the whole thing up as having bee an attempt to blow the whistle on the supposedly unethical behavior of the NSA. He doesn't have much real ammunition, so he's got to play up the not-very-illicit behaviors as though they were really sinister.

He knows the NSA can't reveal exactly what information he sold, so in the "court of public opinion", the government has no way to justify it to the public when they prosecute him for his legitimate crimes.

Now, if this plan fails or even backfires, option A) is still on the table. I think Brazil will block extradition if you move there and get married ..... not sure exactly what the details are of what you have to do to become naturalized.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
You've just got to put yourself in the shoes of a person who's looking at 30 or 40+ years of jail time, and ask yourself: what kind of crazy plans would you entertain if you were in that situation?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:05 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
Well, that's one possible motive. But money, really? Is he that dull? He was already on shed loads of money working for the intelligence services (did you see his house?!). Doesn't seem like this guy was likely to be money hungry - unless he was just money greedy? Hm. Also, if money was really so important to him, you would think that he would therefore greatly value his employment and would be very wary of doing anything to jeapordise that employment. Either he is comfortable taking risks or.. that wasn't his motive. More information on his home life and background (e.g. does he engage in risky behaviours in other areas of his life? Has he shown any historic concern for matters relating to civilian justice?) would help as, of course, would more details of the case.

_________________
gone also


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:21 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
tridimity wrote:
But money, really?

I don't think so, no. My read of the situation is that he has a classic hacker mindset and feels as a result of that ethos that all information should be free and transparent and available to the masses.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:38 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Maybe he should publish his bank statement then.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:44 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
tridimity wrote:
Well, that's one possible motive. But money, really? Is he that dull? He was already on shed loads of money working for the intelligence services (did you see his house?!).


Maybe he had been selling information off and on for a long time, and just never got caught before. Lots of criminals don't know to quit while they're ahead. They just keep going even after they've made their fortune because for some reason they think they'll just never get caught no matter how many times they do it.

But yeah. It's hard to imagine feeling poor if you were a government employee.

Quote:
Doesn't seem like this guy was likely to be money hungry - unless he was just money greedy? Hm. Also, if money was really so important to him, you would think that he would therefore greatly value his employment and would be very wary of doing anything to jeapordise that employment. Either he is comfortable taking risks or.. that wasn't his motive. More information on his home life and background (e.g. does he engage in risky behaviours in other areas of his life? Has he shown any historic concern for matters relating to civilian justice?) would help as, of course, would more details of the case.


Yeah. It would be better to have more information about him if we want to try and speculate about his motives or his state of mind.

It would be hard for me to believe that his intentions are purely altruistic, for the simple reason that he doesn't have much to report. Mostly just the Feds doing some data mining, right? Hard to imagine that alone driving a person to such a degree of outrage that they quit their job and basically give up their law abiding status over it.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:50 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
seagypsy wrote:
iNow wrote:
seagypsy wrote:
That's so sociopathic and weird he would almost deserve an award for ingenuity just for coming up with it...

Hmmm... What's that say about kojax then, since he DID come up with that? :lol:


I'm jealous, I'm usually the creepy inventive one. If I wore a hat I would certainly take it off for Kojax. He should write a screen play with that as a plot.



Actually it already has been the plot of a movie. Or at least a story very similar to it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130080/?ref_=sr_1


And actually come to think of it, the movie was based on a true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Whitacre


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:24 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
Maybe he had been selling information off and on for a long time, and just never got caught before.

Maybe he couldn't afford to feed his unicorn or his flux capacitor needed more unobtanium, too. Let's try not to minimize this type of speculation and stick to facts whenever possible, please folks...

kojax wrote:
Actually it already has been the plot of a movie. Or at least a story very similar to it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130080/?ref_=sr_1


And actually come to think of it, the movie was based on a true story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Whitacre

Lol. Well played, sir! :lol:

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
seagypsy
Post  Post subject: Re: Edward Snowden  |  Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:54 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:44 am
Posts: 176
Location: DFW, TX

Offline
I need to get out more and see more movies I guess. My life is too dramatic as it is. I tend to just wanna stay in my hole and hide.

_________________
It takes a certain amount of obvious stupidity to keep the science geeks from falling asleep. I am happy to do my part in keeping them awake.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy