Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What do you guys think will happen to Edward Snowden? He only wanted the world to know what operations the feds were carrying out behind everyone's backs. Will he likely be charged with Espoinage?

    And has the whole PRISM programme devised by the NSA made you paranoid as to what to say on the phone, e-mail or text message etc?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OJM)
    And has the whole PRISM programme devised by the NSA made you paranoid as to what to say on the phone, e-mail or text message etc?
    Nope, I can't say it has. I've been cautious about what I say online, txt messages, phonecalls etc since 9/11.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't unserstand teh big fuss. It's not as if anyone is actually listening/reading anything you say/type unless something gets flagged. There is just far to much traffic going through the internet for them to even notice you unless you start sending emails about a bomb plot.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No, it's not like I'm a criminal or anything so I wouldn't really care. I don't really care about his motives, what he did was dangerous and he should be punished to the full extent of the law. We can't have people running around thinking they're able to interpret the law whatever way they see fit, how many people would pay taxes if they could just argue they're staunch libertarians and don't support taxation? If you allow him to go unpunished, you're pretty much telling all people who currently have access to sensitive information that they can go ahead and release it all without fear of any repercussions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    I don't unserstand teh big fuss. It's not as if anyone is actually listening/reading anything you say/type unless something gets flagged. There is just far to much traffic going through the internet for them to even notice you unless you start sending emails about a bomb plot.
    Also this, don't people know that they're collecting metadata? It seems some people actually assumes the government are capable of tracking everyone's phone calls/messages.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OJM)
    What do you guys think will happen to Edward Snowden? He only wanted the world to know what operations the feds were carrying out behind everyone's backs. Will he likely be charged with Espoinage?

    And has the whole PRISM programme devised by the NSA made you paranoid as to what to say on the phone, e-mail or text message etc?

    (Original post by sriaz)
    Nope, I can't say it has. I've been cautious about what I say online, txt messages, phonecalls etc since 9/11.

    (Original post by james22)
    I don't unserstand teh big fuss. It's not as if anyone is actually listening/reading anything you say/type unless something gets flagged. There is just far to much traffic going through the internet for them to even notice you unless you start sending emails about a bomb plot.

    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Also this, don't people know that they're collecting metadata? It seems some people actually assumes the government are capable of tracking everyone's phone calls/messages.
    It is amazing how many people fail to see the real threat this technology has the potential to pose. Let's take a hypothetical look at our first subject Muhammad. Muhammad gets flagged for suspicious activity which could indicate terrorism (Muhammad actively participates in groups acknowledged as terrorists). The NSA has the ability to go back and review his electronic activity for five years. So our friends screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Muhammad has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify his habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them foil any potential terror plots. This is a good thing.

    Now let's take a look at our second subject Martha. Martha gets flagged as a person who incites civil hostility (Martha is an inspiring leader of a popular social movement). The NSA has the ability to go back and review her electronic history for five years. So the NSA screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Martha has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify her habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them discredit her and diminish her influence. Is this a good thing?

    There is no reason to be concerned that they have the ability to monitor your activity today, when you are not important. The scary part is that tomorrow, If you do become important, they will have the ability to review your activity leading back to who knows how far.

    If that capability exists, then the world need to be aware of it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The core guarantee of western justice since the Magna Carta 1215 AD has been the right to liberty, expression and privacy of the individual; without due process and the right to privacy, each of us is essentially living at the mercy of the surveillance state.

    I find it hard to see how this type of mass surveillance is not breaking US and EU fundamental law.

    The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the "right to respect for one's private and family life, his home and his correspondence". Further to this, the Data Protection Directive states that personal data should not be processed at all except when certain conditions are met - these include transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality.

    The US Constition, of which the current Court has taken somewhat of a loose interpretation especially in terms of corporate rights, contains no real guarantee to privacy of ones correspondence. However it contains several other privacy clauses enumerated in the Bill of Rights collectively intended to establish limited government at the wishes of the anti-federalists. Therefore, on this premise, it can be said that there is original intent for privacy in ones correspondence although not expressly written, with cases on the subject often using the 14ths "liberty" clause.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    It is amazing how many people fail to see the real threat this technology has the potential to pose. Let's take a hypothetical look at our first subject Muhammad. Muhammad gets flagged for suspicious activity which could indicate terrorism (Muhammad actively participates in groups acknowledged as terrorists). The NSA has the ability to go back and review his electronic activity for five years. So our friends screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Muhammad has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify his habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them foil any potential terror plots. This is a good thing.

    Now let's take a look at our second subject Martha. Martha gets flagged as a person who incites civil hostility (Martha is an inspiring leader of a popular social movement). The NSA has the ability to go back and review her electronic history for five years. So the NSA screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Martha has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify her habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them discredit her and diminish her influence. Is this a good thing?

    There is no reason to be concerned that they have the ability to monitor your activity today, when you are not important. The scary part is that tomorrow, If you do become important, they will have the ability to review your activity leading back to who knows how far.

    If that capability exists, then the world need to be aware of it.
    Nah, still not cause for concern for me because I won't be taking part in any social movements ever. Anyway, as long as you're not stupid and don't connect all your online habits with one email and use your real name then it would be pretty hard for the NSA to collect and organize all your online details into one profile for them to look at. Also, social media profiles with the exception of maybe facebook are generally public so why would you care that the NSA can see them when you allow thousands of others to see them?

    It doesn't matter whether you think the world should be aware of it, the government have deemed it sensitive information. You can't start picking and choosing what sensitive information can be released, that's up to the government, not us. The ends don't justify the means.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AT06)
    I find it hard to see how this type of mass surveillance is not breaking US and EU fundamental law.
    Maybe because you're being pretty arrogant in assuming that you can interpret US law better than the various judges who don't believe that it violates anything. The US constitutions isn't some clear-cut ****, it's just a vague piece of paper. You are in no position to interpret it, the supreme court is and the supreme court has allowed the existence of FISA courts which has the allowed the program.

    Same with EU, if it actually violated anything then Britain would have some questions to answer wouldn't they but nah they don't so it probably didn't. You can't talk about legality without a case or a verdict of the case.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The whole thing is blown so out of proportion it is beyond a joke. First people are under the impression the NSA can just use this metadata willy nilly which is complete crap. For starters if someone is a US citizen currently living within the US their data can't be mined in fact as the bellow snippet from Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act shows there are very very few circumstances where information gained by Prism could be used on a US citizen and virtually none on a US citizen residing within the US.

    [The N.S.A.] (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
 (3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
 (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Now of course the NSA being the big scary evil spy...people could easily just ignore these rules and do whatever they please right? Wrong. The system is subject to review by the judiciary, the Congress, and the executive branch so unless all these members of the US government (who historically aren't exactly the best of buddies) come together in order to hatch a massive conspiracy in order to analyse your Gmail account you have nothing to worry about.

    As for the guy who actually released the details the US should just let him have his five minutes of fame, once the media circus around him has died down he will be much easier to arrest. And he didn't just want the world to know what anyone with half a brain already knew, he has admitted he purposely took a job in order to gain access to sensitive information and then released said sensitive information, that makes him a spy not a whistle blower and he has committed the very definition of espionage in order to become an over night celebrity.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately revealing what I do actually know here would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act, so I won't, but what I will say is I am lucky enough to know how these organisations operate and how they act in accordance with legislation. This whole story has been blown up so much by the media -- people with absolutely no clue what goes on behind close doors -- just to sell stories, and they've done so very successfully.

    In reality no one has anything to fear unless they are engaging in criminal activities. If you are, for shame. If you aren't, shut up because it makes no difference to you other than to protect your safety from people who are engaging in such activities.

    Obviously it's all very secret, that's the nature of intelligence and it would be pointless revealing all secrets to the media and the public because it would aid wannabe terrorists. I would think that common sense, but alas not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If this had been Iran then the US would be saying how wrong it is for a regime to monitor innocent civilians.but because the US claims they are only doing it to catch what the US refers to as "terrorists", no one seems to care because "I havent done anything wrong".
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    If this had been Iran then the US would be saying how wrong it is for a regime to monitor innocent civilians.but because the US claims they are only doing it to catch what the US refers to as "terrorists", no one seems to care because "I havent done anything wrong".
    Do you not think the contrasting, existing civil liberties between the US/UK and Iran count? We have, enshrined in legislation, the right to freedom whilst Iran, for the most part, do not (despite being a 'democracy' -- lol).

    I recommend you read up on this: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us...framework.html

    Similar laws apply to MI6, GCHQ, and the American's have similar laws too. There is no conspiracy; it was merely secret to prevent terrorists avoiding their techniques. Get your paranoid hat off.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Do terrorists really use any mainstream way of communicating across the internet? Very much doubt it.

    I just love the fact America is getting knocked down a peg or two.

    The stuff they are coming out with is comical, I can't believe the can keep a straight with some of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    Do you not think the contrasting, existing civil liberties between the US/UK and Iran count? We have, enshrined in legislation, the right to freedom whilst Iran, for the most part, do not (despite being a 'democracy' -- lol).

    I recommend you read up on this: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us...framework.html

    Similar laws apply to MI6, GCHQ, and the American's have similar laws too. There is no conspiracy; it was merely secret to prevent terrorists avoiding their techniques. Get your paranoid hat off.
    All countries officially have civil rights enshrined on law. Doesn't mean anything if the governments ignore it as is the case in the uk

    If transparency is key then maybe gchq can let me have a look at all their secret data just so I can confirm they aren't "terrorists".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Snowden is a hero. I'm still amazed that residents of the UK and the US haven't taken to the street in protest but seeing the overwhelming response in favour of the programme in this thread well I can' t say I'm surprised. It's amazing how many people fully trust the Government. Amazing.

    There should be mass protests going on about this yet here people are defending it in the name of protection and/or defending it saying that if you haven't anything to hide then you have nothing to fear.

    To quote the great found of the US, Benjamin Franklin:

    ''They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

    No doubt the US constitution has been broken by the surveillance programme and many UK/European laws.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    Unfortunately revealing what I do actually know here would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act, so I won't, but what I will say is I am lucky enough to know how these organisations operate and how they act in accordance with legislation. This whole story has been blown up so much by the media -- people with absolutely no clue what goes on behind close doors -- just to sell stories, and they've done so very successfully.

    In reality no one has anything to fear unless they are engaging in criminal activities. If you are, for shame. If you aren't, shut up because it makes no difference to you other than to protect your safety from people who are engaging in such activities.

    Obviously it's all very secret, that's the nature of intelligence and it would be pointless revealing all secrets to the media and the public because it would aid wannabe terrorists. I would think that common sense, but alas not.
    In spite from your impressive implication that, "you are in the know", it is the fact that I have no clue what goes on behind closed doors that will prevent me from ever trusting that it won't be abused. If I were to list every government program that has had a history of abuse despite supposed oversight, this post would be "TLDR".


    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Snowden is a hero. I'm still amazed that residents of the UK and the US haven't taken to the street in protest but seeing the overwhelming response in favour of the programme in this thread well I can' t say I'm surprised. It's amazing how many people fully trust the Government. Amazing.
    Snowden is a pathetic, self-indulgent little douche. You will see from my posts above that I consider the leaks to be ultimately a good thing. I am not about to celebrate Snowden's actions though. Whatever contribution his actions may have will be a fortunate consequence his dishonorable behavior.

    Had he stayed to face an inditement, he could have voiced his convictions. His actions would have been validated, and his persecution would have instilled indignation. Then he would have been a hero, because heroism requires sacrifice. I see a man who was a nobody, who now thinks he is a somebody. That man will sell out to anyone who can protect him from paying the price for the notoriety he wanted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)



    Snowden is a pathetic, self-indulgent little douche. You will see from my posts above that I consider the leaks to be ultimately a good thing. I am not about to celebrate Snowden's actions though. Whatever contribution his actions may have will be a fortunate consequence his dishonorable behavior.

    Had he stayed to face an inditement, he could have voiced his convictions. His actions would have been validated, and his persecution would have instilled indignation. Then he would have been a hero, because heroism requires sacrifice. I see a man who was a nobody, who now thinks he is a somebody. That man will sell out to anyone who can protect him from paying the price for the notoriety he wanted.
    Yeah bro sure you would stay to face possible 30 years in prison for simply leaking out that the Government is spying on it's own citizens. SURE you would. He's done the right thing and fled the country. You're definition of heroism it a twisted version of it. The fact that he left a country, his family, his high paying salary and his comfortable life for now scavenging like a refugee from country to country is a sacrifice in itself.

    I don't get what's your problem with him, even if he is doing this for his own attention seeking [which is possible but it doesn't seem like it] he should still be given praise for bringing this to the attention of the common citizen. It's a sad state of affairs when those bringing news are criticised.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    It is amazing how many people fail to see the real threat this technology has the potential to pose. Let's take a hypothetical look at our first subject Muhammad. Muhammad gets flagged for suspicious activity which could indicate terrorism (Muhammad actively participates in groups acknowledged as terrorists). The NSA has the ability to go back and review his electronic activity for five years. So our friends screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Muhammad has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify his habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them foil any potential terror plots. This is a good thing.

    Now let's take a look at our second subject Martha. Martha gets flagged as a person who incites civil hostility (Martha is an inspiring leader of a popular social movement). The NSA has the ability to go back and review her electronic history for five years. So the NSA screen every text, tweet, post, search, and conservation Martha has had for the last five years. They use this information to identify her habits, interests, behavior, relationships, vices, indiscretions, and any other personal information which may help them discredit her and diminish her influence. Is this a good thing?

    There is no reason to be concerned that they have the ability to monitor your activity today, when you are not important. The scary part is that tomorrow, If you do become important, they will have the ability to review your activity leading back to who knows how far.

    If that capability exists, then the world need to be aware of it.
    If the government wanted to discredit somebody or screw them obver in some way, this infomation only makes that process a little easier. MI5/6 employ very clever people who would find it very easy to set you up. I doubt there would be any issues in planting 5kg of cocaine in your house or putting child porn on your pc.

    If we get to the point when teh government in considering doing these things they would be doing them regerdless of whether or not they have this data. The data just makes it a bit simpler to do.

    EDIT: i should say that I don't actualyl support them doing this. I just think everyone is making a much bigger deal out of it than it deserves.
 
 
 
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.