Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Discuss Title


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yes he showed the USA to be hypocritical in promoting freedom of speech and being agains t china or russia for monitoring the web.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. He isn't a whistle-blower because he hasn't revealed anything illegal, all his done is reveal sensitive information that he disagrees with on a moral level. I can't condone that and no government can as well because you're pretty much jeopardizing any sensitive information if you start allowing people to release them with no repercussions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I find it somewhat ironic that he has been charged with spying when that's exactly what he has accused the USA of doing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crumpet1)
    I find it somewhat ironic that he has been charged with spying when that's exactly what he has accused the USA of doing.
    He was spying, he even admitted it himself, he took a job with Booz to get more dirt on USA. He might not have been spying for another government or anything like that but it's still espionage if we go by the definition "Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information".

    It's also no secret that the US spies, every country engages in legal spying, what do you think the GCHQ/MI6/MI5 are doing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Is the accessing of personal information about a data subject without their knowledge or consent not unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (and equivalent legislation across Europe)? If so, what the USA was doing wasn't 'legal' spying.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crumpet1)
    Is the accessing of personal information about a data subject without their knowledge or consent not unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (and equivalent legislation across Europe)? If so, what the USA was doing wasn't 'legal' spying.
    Where is the line defined? Is the police following someone in public classed as personal information? What about the police listening to a phone-call (literally overhearing it) in a park? What about in their own home, do you need a warrent?

    Does the web count as 'in public' or is it a private thing? It's not really well defined enough...

    Not saying they weren't breaking the law, but I'm guessing its not super clear cut.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crumpet1)
    Is the accessing of personal information about a data subject without their knowledge or consent not unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (and equivalent legislation across Europe)? If so, what the USA was doing wasn't 'legal' spying.
    No because legality don't work like that. You're not a judge so you can't say whether it violated anything. Until the government deems it illegal, it's legal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    No because legality don't work like that. You're not a judge so you can't say whether it violated anything. Until the government deems it illegal, it's legal.
    gal?

    Who decides what is legal? the same gov spying on its citizens just because something is legal does not make morally right. if there was nothing immoral about spying on your citizens why didn't the gov just say yes we do spy on our citizens and foreign nationals and make the case for it. That way at least there would be a public debate . Also if the USA gov thought it was morally right why do they criticise many countries like china for clamping down on freedom and hacking into its files if it does so it self. the USA supported the blind Chinese lawyer chen who exposed the chines gov for excessively enforcing what was a legal policy: the onechid rule. Why is it that they helped chen bt expected china and now russia to hand in ed snowden
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crumpet1)
    Is the accessing of personal information about a data subject without their knowledge or consent not unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (and equivalent legislation across Europe)? If so, what the USA was doing wasn't 'legal' spying.
    Accessing of personal information without prior approval through a warrant is illegal, yes. However, ISP services, e-mail accounts, social networks et al. all have terms and conditions. With those terms and conditions, the general public which use these services hang their right to privacy when they tick the box to use these services.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree with what he did. The key to a good government is openness. As amnesty international has said, the US should not be seeking to prosecute Snowdon, but should instead be looking into themselves.

    As a side note: The idea that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentally only works if the government can be trusted. If the Government is hiding information from the public, and there is a great deal of corruption in said government, then the public do have good reason to fear.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly not. I find him and the likes of Julian Assange to be hypocritical, self-righteous attention-seekers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Certainly not. I find him and the likes of Julian Assange to be hypocritical, self-righteous attention-seekers.
    Why are they hypocritical and self righteous attention seekers?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    No. He isn't a whistle-blower because he hasn't revealed anything illegal.
    Actually he has. Spying on Americans without probable cause violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Actually he has. Spying on Americans without probable cause violates the 4th amendment of the constitution.
    No it isn't. The constitution isn't a clear-cut document, do you know who has the authority to interpret the constitution? The supreme court and the supreme court hasn't found anything wrong with it.

    You're not a supreme court judge so stop thinking you can interpret the constitution however you like. Do you know how many people claim that arm control is against the 2nd amendment?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Annoying-Mouse, the OP invited discussion on this, but every time anybody says anything that you don't agree with you are shooting them down in an extremely aggressive fashion which is effectively shutting down discussion and debate. You are welcome to your view, but please don't be aggressive towards those who have a different one. The fact is, there ARE laws against what the USA has done, in this country, in the EU and across the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My list of traitors to the people in this thread.

    Annoying-Mouse
    Rhadamanthus
    VeniViciVidi

    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    .
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    .
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tooedgy)
    My list of traitors to the people in this thread.

    Annoying-Mouse
    Rhadamanthus
    VeniViciVidi
    Thanks. Name:  BowBowWow.gif
Views: 261
Size:  115.2 KB

    (Original post by Crumpet1)
    Annoying-Mouse, the OP invited discussion on this, but every time anybody says anything that you don't agree with you are shooting them down in an extremely aggressive fashion which is effectively shutting down discussion and debate. You are welcome to your view, but please don't be aggressive towards those who have a different one. The fact is, there ARE laws against what the USA has done, in this country, in the EU and across the world.
    But, there aren't because you do realize that Snowdon has said that GCHQ does much worse? The GCHQ won't act that illegally without some legal backing. And the UK is in the EU and I haven't seen the EU claim anything illegal was done. I haven't denied there are laws in other countries, maybe there are, I'm just skeptical against anyone who claims it's illegal in this country or America.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tooedgy)
    My list of traitors to the people in this thread.

    Annoying-Mouse
    Rhadamanthus
    VeniViciVidi
    Traitors of what, exactly?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tooedgy)
    My list of traitors to the people in this thread.

    Annoying-Mouse
    Rhadamanthus
    VeniViciVidi
    I gladly accept the label, if you mean "the people" in the Marxist sense.
 
 
 

1,507

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.