Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Mylo on July 21, 2013, 08:02:14 pm
-
Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American former technical contractor for the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who leaked details of several top-secret U.S. and British government mass surveillance programs to the press.
So the simple question is, what do you think of the situation? Do you think his actions were justified? Has he done great good or harm?
Visit the Wikipedia page for more information. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden)
-
What the NSA was doing was massively illegal. He exposed it. He is a wistleblower and should have all the protection whistleblowers are given.
It's very, very simple.
The USA's attempt to crucify him, and prevent him even from seeking asylum for exposing large scale illegal activities is really disgusting.
-
Just another sign that America is no longer a democracy.
-
America was never a democracy, actually. We were meant to be a republic from the start which is quite different and I think much better.
The advantage of a republic is that you're supposed to have certain rights that can not be simply voted away on the whim of majority. Republics protect the minority from the whims of the majority. A denocracy is basically two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-
yes, yes they were
-
As Alsek said, what they were doing was illegal, but what Snowden was also illegal, I do not agree with the NSA's views but, I do think that he should have thought things put a little more carefully.
Also, Putin had me grinning a little with his attitude.
-
As Alsek said, what they were doing was illegal, but what Snowden was also illegal, I do not agree with the NSA's views but, I do think that he should have thought things put a little more carefully.
.
legaly wrong =/= moraly/ethicly wrong.
America was never a democracy, actually. We were meant to be a republic from the start which is quite different and I think much better.
The repuunlic is a form of democrazcy.
The advantage of a republic is that you're supposed to have certain rights that can not be simply voted away on the whim of majority.
Unalienable rights, such as free speach and religion are not the exclusibe domain of the republic.
Republics protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
When the minority are large multi-national corperate polical campaign donors, yes there are protected from the whims of the majority.
Not so much for when it comes to gay marriage or abortion.
-
TheBearGuy, what snowden did was not illegal. It's called whistleblowing. Just like if you were in a software company and you sold that company's secrets to a competitor, that would be illegal. However, exposing the company's illegal practice of tax fraud would NOT be illegal, and you would be protected by law from even being fired for exposing it. The Feds are trying to use laws aimed at the first (things like leaking data about troop movements or technical specs for weapons) for punishing him for doing the second... (exposing them for doing something they're not allowed to do, and is little more than embarris them and force them to stop breaking the law once caught). It's disgusting and also illegal.
When asked what form of government we have in a citizanship exam, if you respond democracy, you will be failed. What we have is a republic. Even Franklin was very quick to point out the differences between the two.
The federal government is not granted power to regulate mariage under the constitution. If it's not listed in the constitution as something the federal government is meant to regulate specifically, it is a matter left to the states. The whole purpose of doing this is moving things closer to voters so that they are empowered to make important changes we are in dire need of making which can not be left to the beurocracy of washington. The closer you get to a locality, the more and more you move from Republic to Democracy. Many states (like california) allow the population to vote directly on new laws, which is actually pretty close to straight democracy.
-
i think he was fully justified, if we are going to be watched, we should at least know about it
-
TheBearGuy, what snowden did was not illegal. It's called whistleblowing. Just like if you were in a software company and you sold that company's secrets to a competitor, that would be illegal. However, exposing the company's illegal practice of tax fraud would NOT be illegal, and you would be protected by law from even being fired for exposing it. The Feds are trying to use laws aimed at the first (things like leaking data about troop movements or technical specs for weapons) for punishing him for doing the second... (exposing them for doing something they're not allowed to do, and is little more than embarris them and force them to stop breaking the law once caught). It's disgusting and also illegal.
When asked what form of government we have in a citizanship exam, if you respond democracy, you will be failed. What we have is a republic. Even Franklin was very quick to point out the differences between the two.
The federal government is not granted power to regulate mariage under the constitution. If it's not listed in the constitution as something the federal government is meant to regulate specifically, it is a matter left to the states. The whole purpose of doing this is moving things closer to voters so that they are empowered to make important changes we are in dire need of making which can not be left to the beurocracy of washington. The closer you get to a locality, the more and more you move from Republic to Democracy. Many states (like california) allow the population to vote directly on new laws, which is actually pretty close to straight democracy.
Don't get me wrong, I am with you on this, His actions were most certainly justified, Perhaps I should have worded that differently.
Reminds me of an old movie, 1986 I think it was called, with the whole, government surveillance and policed state thing going on. Hopefully a world like that will never exist, but this does remind me a little of it.
-
Reminds me of an old movie, 1986 I think it was called, with the whole, government surveillance and policed state thing going on. Hopefully a world like that will never exist, but this does remind me a little of it.[/color]
You're thinking of 1984 by George Orwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Which was later turned into a movie. A very, very good book, and something we're all trying to avoid. This is the whole point. It's what we're trying to avoid. We just learned that we have a government that will threaten you with death, and then imprison you for half your life because you did something that was perfectly legal that embarised them. That shows us how much closer we are to "1984" than we thought.
-
I think he embarrassed the wrong people, and is being
punished for it. What he said about how we were being
watched was likely suspected or known by terrorist
leaders anyway.
edited typos.
-
Why was a contractor given access to such sensitive information? He could have presented his case to a member of Congress IMHO.
By odd coincidence, Target once marketed a plush snowman character named Snowden.
-
I think it's entirely justified, what Snowden did. Since 9/11, it seemed politicians didn't care about it to me. They just soared on the paranoia in order to spy on the American People all the more- specifically, without permission.
The actions taken by the NSA and CIA to hide this are disturbing, and very stifling to the freedoms promised by the Bill of Rights- They actually go directly against them. It's not something people should be standing by about, but the media does a damn good job of not telling a single person about this- something that should be publicly known. NSA was a mistake, a burp in the universe, and should be destroyed or reduced to it's basist form- And that's nothing.
-
I've gone back and forth on this, myself. At first, my reaction was that the guy was a hero for doing it. Then after a few days of hearing what he revealed and what was already known and such, I kinda started wondering if it was really justified.
But lately, as more and more information comes out about the stuff we never knew before, I'm starting to turn back to thinking he was totally justified with it. Especially given all the blatant lies the government has apparently made regarding some of this information in the past.
So, based off what we know and what I've read at this point, I'm back to being in support of what he did.