Petition To Pardon Edward Snowden As A 'National Hero'

• psyal wrote on 2013-07-07 08:54
  For one, I'm somewhat surprised that there were people that didn't know of the existence of something like this program. I thought it was rather common knowledge. How else did people think that the government prevented various convenient online/digital services from being used to successfully conduct crimes and terrorism?
  
  Anyways, the issue with Edward Snowden is not that he informed the world about this secret program, which one could guess exists without being told. Although, his informing the world of it does decrease the program's effectiveness drastically, as it was one of those things that works best when no one knows about it. I'm still wondering why people are fine with a corporation knowing their information, but not the government.
  
  The issue here is that he released information that he was legally obligated to never reveal. Only in the most situational or extreme of cases will a person be able to get away with doing that, as keeping confidential information secret is extremely important.
  
  As an ending thing to mention:
  Many people seem offended that the government has this secret program. However, as far as I know of, not one of them has proposed an alternative that is less invasive, just as or more effective, while still causing no harm to the law abiding folk.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-07 12:13

  Quote from psyal;1118256:

  How else did people think that the government prevented various convenient online/digital services from being used to successfully conduct crimes and terrorism?

  
  
  Uh. They don't. This still happens all the time. Bombing in Boston anyone? And those two guys were even on the FBI's watch list already. If this program can't even stop someone who is ON A WATCH LIST from organizing a terroristic attack over the internet, how is it supposed to stop people who aren't on that list? Not to mention the whole invasion of privacy thing and whatnot.
  
  So unless I see some results coming from this program I'm not seeing the need for it. And even if I do see results from it it's still going too far.
• psyal wrote on 2013-07-07 23:17

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118286:

  Uh. They don't. This still happens all the time. Bombing in Boston anyone? And those two guys were even on the FBI's watch list already. If this program can't even stop someone who is ON A WATCH LIST from organizing a terroristic attack over the internet, how is it supposed to stop people who aren't on that list? Not to mention the whole invasion of privacy thing and whatnot.
  
  So unless I see some results coming from this program I'm not seeing the need for it. And even if I do see results from it it's still going too far.

  
  
  I never said it was to stop terrorism entirely. It was designed to be a trap for any terrorist who used those services, which was the whole reason for it being classified. Obviously, some terrorists are going to have guessed the existence of the program beforehand, and would just not use any public online services. And now, due to your 'hero', even less terrorists are going to fall for that trap.
  
  And the issue is that you'll never see the results from this. Why? Because it's a classified project, and any success it has had would also be considered classified. As seeing any good results directly would be impossible, you'll have to draw a conclusion based on other information. Such as the fact that this project has been running for several years now. Or that, while we have been hated by several countries and demographics, terrorism here is something that makes big news because it happens so rarely. Try naming every act of terrorism done in the USA within the past five years.
  
  And again, if you would like to criticize their project, please, as I asked above, describe a project that is just as effective, is less invasive, and causes no harm to the law abiding folk. Otherwise, your complaint has little weight to it. You automatically lose at any debate without having a counter suggestion, it's a basic rule.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-07 23:39

  Quote from psyal;1118486:

  describe a project that is just as effective

  
  
  The program isn't effective. Therefore no program at all is just as effective and less evasive. Ta-da.
  
  

  Quote from psyal;1118486:

  Try naming every act of terrorism done in the USA within the past five years.

  
  
  Also, this has been monitoring the entire world, not just the USA. So you can't limit it to terrorist attacks in the US because they are watching EVERYONE so if it's so effective they should be able to stop ANYTHING that is planned over the internet in ANY country.
  
  Also,
  Boston Bombings
  Terrorist attack on the US Consulate and murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi, Libya(US property so legally it was an attack in the USA)
  Attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona
  Suicide bombing on an IRS building using a plane in 2010
  Car bombing in New York
  Bombing of a Mosque in Florida
  Two attempted bombings on US aircraft discovered by Saudi Arabia, NOT us
  Smoke bomb used to crash an American plane headed to Germany
  In Arkansas an American Muslim opened fire on a recruiting office
  US base bombed killing 8 CIA members
  A Major opened fire and killed his own soldiers at a fort in Texas
  Another shooting in an American Consulate
  
  And those are just the reported ones. We could probably throw in all the school shootings too, seeing as a lot of them announce they are going to do it on the internet before they do it.
  
  There have been 39 school shootings in the past 3 years by the way.
  
  Believe it or not, Fox news doesn't tell you everything that goes on.
  
  Yeah. There's been so few terrorist attacks.
• Yoorah wrote on 2013-07-07 23:44

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118286:

  This still happens all the time. Bombing in Boston anyone?
  etc etc

  
  Boston bombing-like events happen all the time? I think you need to re-evaluate your thoughts.
  Also, what psyal said.
  
  Another key thing to remember is that Americans should be the least upset about this, as the program is ultimately set up by Americans, for their benefit and with built-in protections for themselves. The rest of the world however gets spied on without any comparable protections for their citizens and with no benefit for their nations. Some European countries, for instance, are quite upset right now.
• psyal wrote on 2013-07-08 01:10

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118496:

  The program isn't effective. Therefore no program at all is just as effective and less evasive. Ta-da.

  
  That's identical to saying there's nothing in a box because you can't open it. As so, your basis is logically flawed, and your conclusion is therefore incorrect. Please come up with a logically sound countersuggestion.
  
  
  

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118496:

  Also, this has been monitoring the entire world, not just the USA. So you can't limit it to terrorist attacks in the US because they are watching EVERYONE so if it's so effective they should be able to stop ANYTHING that is planned over the internet in ANY country.
  
  Also,
  Boston Bombings
  Terrorist attack on the US Consulate and murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi, Libya(US property so legally it was an attack in the USA)
  Attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona
  Suicide bombing on an IRS building using a plane in 2010
  Car bombing in New York
  Bombing of a Mosque in Florida
  Two attempted bombings on US aircraft discovered by Saudi Arabia, NOT us
  Smoke bomb used to crash an American plane headed to Germany
  In Arkansas an American Muslim opened fire on a recruiting office
  US base bombed killing 8 CIA members
  A Major opened fire and killed his own soldiers at a fort in Texas
  Another shooting in an American Consulate
  
  And those are just the reported ones. We could probably throw in all the school shootings too, seeing as a lot of them announce they are going to do it on the internet before they do it.
  
  There have been 39 school shootings in the past 3 years by the way.
  
  Believe it or not, Fox news doesn't tell you everything that goes on.
  
  Yeah. There's been so few terrorist attacks.

  
  School shootings aren't a terrorist activity, simply a criminal activity, and therefore not the concern of the program, for your information.
  
  So, by your list of reported incidents, there has been around an average of two or three a year. That's not very much, compared to other places.
  
  Also, they are not monitoring everyone. Doing so would require too much time and effort. What they are doing is logging all the information they can, from these sources, and doing searches to find suspicious emails, videos, and such. Then, using this information, they can inform and assist in the effort to prevent terrorism. Obviously, they won't always have the information needed to stop an act of terrorism, but that can't be helped if the information doesn't exist.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-08 01:49

  Quote from psyal;1118522:

  That's identical to saying there's nothing in a box because you can't open it. As so, your basis is logically flawed, and your conclusion is therefore incorrect. Please come up with a logically sound countersuggestion.

  
  
  And assuming that it IS working because you haven't been blown up yet is logical? No. I think not. That's identical to saying that I must be immune to cancer because I don't have it yet even though other people do.
• Aubog007 wrote on 2013-07-08 02:16

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118532:

  And assuming that it IS working because you haven't been blown up yet is logical? No. I think not. That's identical to saying that I must be immune to cancer because I don't have it yet even though other people do.

  
  
  Just because there's a fence at your house that keeps out intruders...
  
  Doesn't mean an intruder won't get through at some point.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-08 02:25

  Quote from Aubog007;1118543:

  Just because there's a fence at your house that keeps out intruders...
  
  Doesn't mean an intruder won't get through at some point.

  
  
  But if you don't get robbed does that mean you have an invisible fence just because you aren't getting robbed?
• psyal wrote on 2013-07-08 04:00

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118532:

  And assuming that it IS working because you haven't been blown up yet is logical? No. I think not. That's identical to saying that I must be immune to cancer because I don't have it yet even though other people do.

  
  I do assume that it is working, considering the facts, but I won't go so far as to say that it is working, as I cannot prove such a thing. Also, while your comparison is correct, though cancer isn't an infectious disease(and so 'immune' is the wrong word), that is not the basis of my assumption.
  
  

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118550:

  But if you don't get robbed does that mean you have an invisible fence just because you aren't getting robbed?

  
  You are correct in that you cannot assume you have an invisible fence just because you do not get robbed. However, in your case, you are assuming you don't have a fence because you've been robbed once, just because you can't see it, without confirming whether or not you do.
  
  As far as the government is concerned, their project is the best option they know of. They believe in its effectiveness, and you can't prove otherwise. If you can't provide them with a better option, your opposition will have no weight.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-08 04:29

  Quote from psyal;1118594:

  I do assume that it is working, considering the facts, but I won't go so far as to say that it is working, as I cannot prove such a thing. Also, while your comparison is correct, though cancer isn't an infectious disease(and so 'immune' is the wrong word), that is not the basis of my assumption.
  
  
  You are correct in that you cannot assume you have an invisible fence just because you do not get robbed. However, in your case, you are assuming you don't have a fence because you've been robbed once, just because you can't see it, without confirming whether or not you do.
  
  As far as the government is concerned, their project is the best option they know of. They believe in its effectiveness, and you can't prove otherwise. If you can't provide them with a better option, your opposition will have no weight.

  
  
  Well, if keeping it a secret was the only way it would work, and it's no longer secret it should no longer work.
  If it does work even with everyone knowing about it, then keeping its results secret is pointless because obviously the secrecy doesn't matter.
  If it doesn't work now that everyone knows about it, keeping it in place is pointless because it doesn't work.
• Evaris wrote on 2013-07-08 06:10
  Not to mention the clear violation of the 4th amendment which is one of the parts of the Constitution in place to, you know, keep a tyrannical government from taking root. For all the good it's done with the loophole they're using, but still, it's a violation. The only reason there wasn't outrage before is the evidence wasn't in place.
• Aubog007 wrote on 2013-07-08 06:44

  Quote from Evaris;1118642:

  Not to mention the clear violation of the 4th amendment which is one of the parts of the Constitution in place to, you know, keep a tyrannical government from taking root. For all the good it's done with the loophole they're using, but still, it's a violation. The only reason there wasn't outrage before is the evidence wasn't in place.

  
  
  Blah, all this government corruption stuff is... Meh.
  
  
  Most of this corruption stuff is spearheaded by a single person or a small group.
  
  
  It gets really fucking annoying when i work for the government and i have ignorant people saying i am part of the problem.
  
  Yes, things have been violated, is it the government's fault, partially, is it an individual's fault (or group?) yes.
  
  Just because a boss or higher management is a douchebag, doesnt mean everyone else related to it is.
  
  
  See. Enron, Banks, Insurance companies, government, etc.
  
  Please stop lumping the government as the fault of everything instead of targetting the specific group.
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-07-08 08:41
  Snowden reveals Australia had a hand in spying for the US.
  http://www.theage.com.au/world/snowden-reveals-australias-links-to-us-spy-web-20130708-2plyg.html#ixzz2YQzNmRCO
  
  Informed college students don't like the NSA.
  [video=youtube;Qz4GwPPAFD0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4GwPPAFD0[/video]
• Kaeporo wrote on 2013-07-08 21:25

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1118682:

  Snowden reveals Australia had a hand in spying for the US.
  http://www.theage.com.au/world/snowden-reveals-australias-links-to-us-spy-web-20130708-2plyg.html#ixzz2YQzNmRCO
  
  Informed college students don't like the NSA.
  [video=youtube;Qz4GwPPAFD0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4GwPPAFD0[/video]

  
  
  Oh no. Not a YouTube video. It looks like those college students put the government in a real bind.
  
  Whatever will the government do now?
  
  I'm not saying that either party is wrong. I'm just saying that the efforts of both in regards to this revelation are unsurprisingly lame.