Edward Snowden

[widows son]

What if the obligation goes against the welfare and rights of a people? Ultimately aren't the people the country and sovereign? If a government oversteps its bounds, is it not the people's choice to select a new regime?

I understand that there is a need to preserve safety and well being, but a much deeper trust can be obtained with transparency.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

What if the obligation goes against the welfare and rights of a people? Ultimately aren't the people the country and sovereign? If a government oversteps its bounds, is it not the people's choice to select a new regime?

One has an obligation to not obey illegal orders. Yes, that's a fine notion, but in practice, the judgement required to determine "the right thing" to do is often difficult in the extreme. All the more reason to revere the individual who is willing to act while knowing that he will likely be sacrificing much by doing so.

 

[widows son]

"One has an obligation to not obey illegal orders. Yes, that's a fine notion, but in practice, the judgement required to determine "the right thing" to do is often difficult in the extreme. All the more reason to revere the individual who is willing to act while knowing that he will likely be sacrificing much by doing so."

• Difficult is an understatement. Snowden may have pissed a lot of people off, but in the end people are aware of the fact that their private info is going right into the hands of the gov. In the last few weeks there hasn't been anything Snowden from the mass media. And for a reason.

 

[dfreybur]

Difficult is an understatement.

Very much so. I hope I'm never in the type of situation where I would need to betray mu obligations in that way.

Snowden may have pissed a lot of people off, but in the end people are aware of the fact that their private info is going right into the hands of the gov.

It never even occurred to me that the government might not get copies of those records automatically. That part of the story line has always confused me. The switch from private land lines to public broadcast to me automatically included dropping any expectation of privacy. It's like running face recognition software on street cameras. The streets are out in the public, what expectation of privacy is there out in public? To me it wasn't about whether it was about the rest of the who, what, when, where and why list.

 

[OKGRSEC]

At some point in his hiring process, Snowden signed a document promising not to reveal the Secrets he would learn in his position, under penalty of punishment by law. All military with Secret/Top Secret clearances do the same.
We also take oaths as Masons, under penalty of our conscience.
I guess if you feel you can pick & choose which oaths to obey, fine, but Snowden had many options available to him other than the self-serving ones he chose.
If he wants to be a hero, let him face the music.

 

[Bro. David F. Hill]

None of those things that were happening were new. They were all authorized under the "Patriot Act" though people were so caught up in national safety after 9/11 that they just let it pass without question thinking that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. My question is why the shock now? If this would have happened under President Bush, we would be calling him a traitor. Underneath all the shock, it is all about politics and both sides of the aisle are guilty of this kind of action. Politicians now vote their ideology and not their conscience. Nero fiddled while Rome burned and now politicians bicker while America decays. History does repeat itself.

 

[widows son]

"At some point in his hiring process, Snowden signed a document promising not to reveal the Secrets he would learn in his position, under penalty of punishment by law. All military with Secret/Top Secret clearances do the same.
We also take oaths as Masons, under penalty of our conscience.
I guess if you feel you can pick & choose which oaths to obey, fine, but Snowden had many options available to him other than the self-serving ones he chose.
If he wants to be a hero, let him face the music."

•. So your ok with your gov collecting your info without your consent? Snowden believed what the gov is doing I wrong. I agree with him.

When we take our obligation we are to up hold it with exception of murder, felony. Treason etc.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

It never even occurred to me that the government might not get copies of those records automatically. That part of the story line has always confused me. The switch from private land lines to public broadcast to me automatically included dropping any expectation of privacy. It's like running face recognition software on street cameras. The streets are out in the public, what expectation of privacy is there out in public? To me it wasn't about whether it was about the rest of the who, what, when, where and why list.

The notion that the use of RF, as a communications medium, automatically negates any expectation of privacy does not really make sense. First of all, telephone communications is not a "broadcast". Yes, anyone within range can "receive" the signal, but doing so is actually a crime. Moreover, for about two decades now, the decryption required to actually listen to mobile phone conversations is an even bigger crime. On top of that, the meta data, which the government wants desperately for us to believe does not matter, is most certainly not broadcast. It is however, harvested by the NSA. That's wrong. Listening to my phone calls, regardless of the medium carrying that call, without a warrant, is wrong.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

His oath did not require him to be a criminal, or to keep the secrets of criminals. QED.

 

[jvarnell]

The notion that the use of RF, as a communications medium, automatically negates any expectation of privacy does not really make sense. First of all, telephone communications is not a "broadcast". Yes, anyone within range can "receive" the signal, but doing so is actually a crime. Moreover, for about two decades now, the decryption required to actually listen to mobile phone conversations is an even bigger crime. On top of that, the meta data, which the government wants desperately for us to believe does not matter, is most certainly not broadcast. It is however, harvested by the NSA. That's wrong. Listening to my phone calls, regardless of the medium carrying that call, without a warrant, is wrong.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I would like to tell you why RF is considered deferent.

The distinction on what they were monitoring wire. Which has an ownership. The air has no ownership so anything I can capture in the air/ether becomes mine because it is now in my possession. But the records were all generated at the point where it is not in the air. If they actually obtain those records by sticking an antenna in the air I don't think by law it would be wrong but you could encrypt that also. It all comes down to privet property rights.

This is just information I was told by a Judge that issued a warrant. It was just how he explained it to me.

 

[jvarnell]

The data that Snowden said the NSA was looking at was not the call content but from whom to whom. The patriot act only allow this data to be sent to the gov. without a warrant if it crosses in or out of the country.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I would like to tell you why RF is considered deferent.

The distinction on what they were monitoring wire. Which has an ownership. The air has no ownership so anything I can capture in the air/ether becomes mine because it is now in my possession.

Certain portions of the "air", or more precisely, of the RF spectrum most certainly do have ownership. Don't believe me? Start operating your own transmitter on bands assigned to mobile phone networks and see what happens. Just listening to cell phone conversations (if you can find any that are not encrypted anymore) is a crime. Not so when listening to "cordless" phone conversations, 2-way radio, etc. All those technologies use radios, but WRT regulatory issues, they are very different.

But the records were all generated at the point where it is not in the air.

Exactly. The meta data that the NSA is harvesting wholesale is not "broadcast"

 

[jvarnell]

Certain portions of the "air", or more precisely, of the RF spectrum most certainly do have ownership. Don't believe me? Start operating your own transmitter on bands assigned to mobile phone networks and see what happens. Just listening to cell phone conversations (if you can find any that are not encrypted anymore) is a crime. Not so when listening to "cordless" phone conversations, 2-way radio, etc. All those technologies use radios, but WRT regulatory issues, they are very different.


Exactly. The meta data that the NSA is harvesting wholesale is not "broadcast"

The RF spectrum is not owned but is regulated. I would love to see the statute you are talking about being against the law to listening. The only one I know of tell me it is a crime to use what you have heard. The encryption of cell phones is not to ensure someone can not hear the conversion but keep someone from changing it. for less than $100 anyone can buy a scanner that will play al phone calls from a cell phone. The encryption I use sometimes is TrustCall.

Now on RF if you use spread spectrum Freq. hopping you will have a very good chance for privacy.

 

[BryanMaloney]

One can allegedly "own" real estate in the USA. Nevertheless, once one "owns" it, one still has to pay rent on it to the true owner--the government. This rent is called "property tax". If any entity has the authority to charge ongoing, perpetual fees to use something or to prohibit its use for non-criminal purposes, that entity owns it, regardless of what the pretty little technicalities might say. The reality is ownership.

 

[jvarnell]

One can allegedly "own" real estate in the USA. Nevertheless, once one "owns" it, one still has to pay rent on it to the true owner--the government. This rent is called "property tax". If any entity has the authority to charge ongoing, perpetual fees to use something or to prohibit its use for non-criminal purposes, that entity owns it, regardless of what the pretty little technicalities might say. The reality is ownership.

Oh man this is wrong in so many ways. A property tax is not rent of any sort. The reason we use property tax is the government has to have operating money. The liberal way of getting money for us is to take money for those they call "Haves". If someone has property the gov. takes money from them to keep all the un-continental programs going. The problem with property tax is that it hits most of us and not just those that can be vilified as rich.

But back to Snowden and the law. When we look at this stuff we need to look at how the laws are structured and not how we feel. The laws were structured to help the majority of the people because you can't help 100% we are human and deferent for each other. ALso Snowden could have gone through channels and had the same effect and still be in the US not NSA but in the US and working.

Also my view of this is deferent because when a subject like this comes up I go read the statutes someone is being accused of or charged with be for saying anything. Our feelings a not always the same about a subject if we don't know what it is base on. A lot of people take legal precedents and make them right also that they use in there feelings. What I have said is only my opinion about the subject but I base it on the law and precedents of that law.

 

[JJones]

Oh man this is wrong in so many ways. A property tax is not rent of any sort. The reason we use property tax is the government has to have operating money.

I think Bro. Maloney was being a little tongue in cheek. That being said, stop paying your property taxes and see how long you have rights to it...much like if you stopped making payments on a rental property.

 

[jvarnell]

I think Bro. Maloney was being a little tongue in cheek. That being said, stop paying your property taxes and see how long you have rights to it...much like if you stopped making payments on a rental property.

Maybe, I answered the way I did because this is the same argument given to me by one of those guy that says we are controlled by the government. I always say we are not if we vote not to be and change the tax structure where they can't.

 

[BryanMaloney]

The data that Snowden said the NSA was looking at was not the call content but from whom to whom. The patriot act only allow this data to be sent to the gov. without a warrant if it crosses in or out of the country.

A rubber-stamped "warrant" that is never refused by the kangaroo "court" is identical to "without a warrant". This is a well-established principle of both common law and US law in general. When a process becomes a rubber stamp, it is legally equivalent to no process. When a protection is always voided, this is legally equivalent to no protection. Thus, since the FISA court invariably granted these pseudo-warrants, there were no actual warrants, only the pretense of a warrant.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Oh man this is wrong in so many ways. A property tax is not rent of any sort. The reason we use property tax is the government has to have operating money. The liberal way of getting money for us is to take money for those they call "Haves". If someone has property the gov. takes money from them to keep all the un-continental programs going. The problem with property tax is that it hits most of us and not just those that can be vilified as rich.

In the USA, the majority of people do not pay property tax. The majority of people in the USA do not own anything subject to property tax (or "inventory tax", either). Thus, property tax still comes down to "soak the rich"--except "rich" is defined a little differently. The reason I pay rent is because the landlord uses it to pay expenses, partially his own, and partially to maintain the property in question. Thus, property taxes play the same function as does rent. Now, that being said, if you want government projects, they have to be paid for. The thing is that all taxation occurs at the point of a gun. Thus, whatever government does should be so important that it is acceptable to use the threat of imprisonment (or worse) in order to fund it. Don't believe that all taxation occurs at the point of a gun? Try refusing to pay any taxes and see what happens. Now, refuse to donate to charity. What happens?

But back to Snowden and the law. When we look at this stuff we need to look at how the laws are structured and not how we feel. The laws were structured to help the majority of the people

The laws are structured to help competing special-interest groups. At one time, perhaps, a "majority of the people" might have been a consideration, but we are now the government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.

ALso Snowden could have gone through channels and had the same effect and still be in the US not NSA but in the US and working.

Snowden going through channels would have just been stonewalled and blacklisted. He would never be able to find work. That's how bureaucracies work. I should know, I've worked with far too many. I've been the "through channels" guy. It gets nothing but being labeled as "not a team player". A "team player" is someone who is happy to just let the gravy train keep chugging along and corruption keep along with it. Someone who wants things to work the way they are supposed to is "not a team player". There can be ways around this, but you have to become a pitbull on steroids with more cunning than the bastard offspring of a viper and Machiavelli--and this doesn't always work. When a system is thouroughly dominated by corruption, when it has rubber-stamp "courts" that approve everything it wants, when it is based upon abuses, it will always refuse reform from within.

Also my view of this is deferent because when a subject like this comes up I go read the statutes someone is being accused of or charged with be for saying anything. Our feelings a not always the same about a subject if we don't know what it is base on. A lot of people take legal precedents and make them right also that they use in there feelings. What I have said is only my opinion about the subject but I base it on the law and precedents of that law.

Therefore, as far as you are concerned, the law can never be immoral.

Sorry, government isn't my God.

 

[bro cue]

I don't see a reason to punish him as the foreign intel committee voted to not changema damn thing.

Freemason Connect Mobile