Snowden Is No Hero Yet NSA Surveillance Security/Privacy Balance Needed (VIDEO)

[egbertowillies]

Snowden could have blown the whistle with non-traditional media. Instead he chose to hurt the nation's entire intelligence apparatus. That's a traitor.
http://egbertowillies.com/2013/12/27/snowden-edward-nsa-surveillance/

[Thinkingabout]

1. BIG K & R

Very good article, there will be a need to make changes at NSA along with other classified information. The need for deeper background checks for any employee who ever gets close security information. I think I have been subject to deeper background checks than Snowden was or perhaps someone read the information they received from the checks. The type of data obtained by the NSA has been kept mostly private for many years, was available to many but was not stolen and used as blackmail by rogue employees like Snowden. I am not sure a ten year sentence is sufficient.

[mike_c]

2. this is how bad ideas become memes-- repeat them long enough...

...and they become mainstream.

I disagree fundamentally. No such "balance" is necessary except to maintain the surveillance state. Instead, we need to entirely dismantle the mechanisms of the surveillance state. Personal privacy should take priority over any surveillance needs except when there is probable cause to suspect an actual crime has been committed.

Does that mean people can plot in secrecy? Yes it does.

[ljm2002]

3. I watched the video...

...and I don't think they are very clear on these issues either.

Joy Reid asked: Say we have a known "dirty" phone number, from Lahore Pakistan. We see it makes a call into the US but we don't know to whom. What should the NSA do? --My answer: obtain a warrant and monitor the calls, maybe even tap them. It ain't that hard. I fail to see how building a bigger haystack -- i.e. metadata on every single phone call in the US -- helps with this process.

One panel member brought up the Boston bombing and talked about how we might have been able to usephone numbers, who called who and when. But she failed to mention that we already had very real intelligence about Tamarlan, from the Russian government. Our agencies ignored that warning -- they could have got a warrant on him and monitored his activities but did not do so. How does building a bigger haystack of phone data help this situation?

They brought up the issue of privacy as it pertains to private companies, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, even the Target data breach. These are legitimate issues, that in no way negate the issue of how much data the government gathers and how it is used. What is very interesting, however, is that we are now HAVING these discussions, where before Snowden's revelations, we were NOT having them.

No need to cast Snowden as a hero or as a traitor. He did what he did, and it is having its effects. He has certainly been more effective than others who came before.

[MarcoS]

4. Oh please

The only possible reason one might care how the NSA's constitutional violations came to light is if one is interested in protecting those who currently trample all over our Constitution. As much as I generally abhor the idea, this is a rare case where the ends really did justify the means. If Snowden had gone to non-traditional media, the story would have been probably been relegated to CT and blown off by both the media that matters and the U.S. Senate.

[anti partisan]

5. Thank you. See Russ Tice, whistleblower lacking documentation who was mainly ignored (nt)