Freedom of speech is 'universal' right, Michelle Obama tells China

[RazPaK]

Ok we have no honour. All the honour in the world is found in Pakistanis. We are slaves and you are? You were ruled by British while most of us are at least mixed with those European settlers. Brazil wouldn't exist without colonization. Our only export is our women's asses and your export is? Terrorismo? Congrats. You forced me to insult Pakistanis by through your hostile attitude.

You deserved it. You were making huge assumptions about Pakistanis from the limited expats you met in Canada. That was your ignorance.


Come to Pakistan. Our country and truly learn about us. After that you can make all the assumptions that you want.

I was harsh towards you, but I only replied to your ignorant blanket statements.

 

[JayAtl]

See below.



Whether the information is tagged or not is irrelevant. It is the intrusion of privacy itself which is forbidden, And some of the intrusion was done without a warrant.



Sadly, it is you who lack comprehension of the Fourth.

LOL, again I thought you knew about the case and had the comprehension level to read what IV states vs what happened here.


1. It is not against our privacy laws when it is about protecting the country against harm and our freedoms. That too is in the constitution. THE ONLY TIME the calls were listened into is when they established that the call came from/ or went to a KNOWN TERRORIST NUMBER and that too- had to happen between international call and a US call .


2. It is relevant if it was tagged , because if it was tagged without a warrant it would a violation of our laws!

3. which intrusion was done without a warrant? prove it... show us link. if not- stop pretending you know anything about our laws or this case.


you make a whole lot of claims about IV, you have no clue how the system was setup to not violate the 4th ( no private identification, FISA courts / judges to go to get warrants, with probable cause for warrants etc etc)

what you don't understand , not being from here---is the supreme court has ruled on probable cause and IV in domestic cases and has given leeway when the public safety is paramount.

With that my 15 mins of being entertained are done- good night!

 

[Developereo]

1. It is not against our privacy laws when it is about protecting the country against harm and our freedoms. That too is in the constitution. THE ONLY TIME the calls were listened into is when they established that the call came from/ or went to a KNOWN TERRORIST NUMBER and that too- had to happen between international call and a US call .

What separates the US from totalitarian regimes -- and what you fail to understand -- is that national security is not a carte blanche to be used by the authorities to subvert people's liberties. Official actions are constrained by specific rules and, when those rules are violated, people like Snowden come forward.

2. It is relevant if it was tagged , because if it was tagged without a warrant it would a violation of our laws!

Once again, the intrusion itself is the issue, not the tagging.

3. which intrusion was done without a warrant? prove it... show us link. if not- stop pretending you know anything about our laws or this case.

Snowden Document: NSA Tracks, Hacks System Administrators | Crooks and Liars

According to a secret document provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the agency tracks down the private email and Facebook accounts of system administrators (or sys admins, as they are often called), before hacking their computers to gain access to the networks they control.
[...]
Yet the document makes clear that the admins are not suspected of any criminal activity – they are targeted only because they control access to networks the agency wants to infiltrate.

With that my 15 mins of being entertained are done- good night!

Oh, there is no doubt who is providing the entertainment here.

 

[blackface]

You deserved it. You were making huge assumptions about Pakistanis from the limited expats you met in Canada. That was your ignorance.


Come to Pakistan. Our country and truly learn about us. After that you can make all the assumptions that you want.

I was harsh towards you, but I only replied to your ignorant blanket statements.

Different cultures have different ways of greeting. I never said that yours is inferior or the Brazilian way is the only correct way.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Typical Razpak, if he is not busy insulting someones mother, he is insulting someone's wife

Like a typical islamist tool, others wives and mothers are fair game for him. But if someone looks at his own, then he'll go all suicide bomber and throw a tantrum saying he'll leave the forum this and that, only to come back to lick his own spit. And he talks about honor in every second post. This is a + for the forum moderators.

 

[gambit]

It's his life which is at stake so it is not surprising that he would take the conservative approach.

That does not make it right.

What is the old saying: 'A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client' ?

This is so ingrained into any society that obeys the rule of law that it would be absurd for Snowden to go outside established norm. If it is unwise or even stupid for a lawyer to represent himself, it is tenfold stupid for Snowden to believe that fleeing to a dictatorship was the only safe avenue. It is not 'conservative'. It was outright stupid. Either that or it is what increasingly many came to believe: delusion of grandeur.

The example I gave was deliberately an extreme case to make the point that protecting co-workers is not sacrosanct.

The concept applies to more mainstream cases. That is why whistleblower laws exist in the first place -- because legitimate corporations do run afoul of the law. And sometimes, they do so with complicity at many levels. Exposing such transgressions of the law will put colleagues in the firing line.

Yeah...So extreme that you might as well compare the FBI to the code enforcement division of the mafia.

The NSA is charged with a legitimate mission: to participate in securing national security.

National security is in everyone's interests whether a person is consciously aware of that need or not.

So regarding your silly example, how is theft of credit card info serves the citizenry's interests ?

Yes, the NSA strayed from the original boundaries set by law, but that deviation did not came from the NSA's own selfish desires but from a greater authority and need: the government and national security.

Respecting colleagues' professional privacy is not protecting them. Did Snowden knew exactly who was doing what, how far did that person strayed, and from whose authority ? Not likely. I work in the Probe dept., specifically 'Probe Process Engineering'. Every wafer that crosses my desk, figuratively speaking, I make sure it have the correct map of good/fail dies to ship to our customers. But just because I have a need to know the entire flow, from raw silicon to shipping, of every single design we make, that does not mean I have the right to waltz into the scientists' area and start demanding they turn over their data.

For the NSA, compartmentalization would be a given. Snowden would have a good idea of the general duties, responsibilities, and results of whatever his colleagues does, and he may even have a fairly accurate assessment of what they do without seeing those results, but if there was no need to apply the 'need to know' rule, why was Snowden felt compelled to deceive his colleagues into giving him unauthorized access to their electronic lockers and desks ? Deceiving one's colleagues is not 'protecting' them.

Your analogy was a feeble attempt to cast Snowden in a positive light.

Finally...Just in case you think I made up what I do for a living...

Probe Process Engineer - Chandler at Microchip Technology Incorporated in Chandler Arizona US 85224 - Job | LinkedIn

The Probe area is the final technical area at the wafer level of the manufacturing process. Die extractions, assembly, and packaging can be done in-house or at the customer level. For every single design we manufacture, I can access detail specs for every single step from silicon ingot to when the wafer touches my testers. So yes, I do know about infosec.

 

[JayAtl]

What separates the US from totalitarian regimes -- and what you fail to understand -- is that national security is not a carte blanche to be used by the authorities to subvert people's liberties. Official actions are constrained by specific rules and, when those rules are violated, people like Snowden come forward.



Once again, the intrusion itself is the issue, not the tagging.



Snowden Document: NSA Tracks, Hacks System Administrators | Crooks and Liars

According to a secret document provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the agency tracks down the private email and Facebook accounts of system administrators (or sys admins, as they are often called), before hacking their computers to gain access to the networks they control.
[...]
Yet the document makes clear that the admins are not suspected of any criminal activity – they are targeted only because they control access to networks the agency wants to infiltrate.



Oh, there is no doubt who is providing the entertainment here.

I knew you would keep the entertaining up.

1. you have now moved from the article IV to preaching about what makes us " the land of the free". Oye don't worry about what separates us , stick to the legal basis on article IV - that you have yet to show as being violated.

2. I know this concept is getting difficult for you to comprehend, but " tagging" is the issue as no intrusion has taken place if not tagged...that is how article IV is not breached. This is the action( among others) that make it " legal". There is no "unreasonable" search and nor seizure if not tagged

3. I asked to show proof of action without a "warrant" and you not only did not give any such proof- but all you have given me is some comment in some media about hacking sys admins.

What is freaking hilarious is that, even so, that it talks about hacking...it goes to further say- QUOTE " foreign network routers, the devices that connect computer networks and transport data across the Internet. By infiltrating the computers of system administrators who work for foreign phone and Internet companies, the NSA can gain access to the calls and emails that flow over their networks." ....

All spy agencies do that

 

[Developereo]

What is the old saying: 'A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client' ?

As usual you miss the point entirely.
Snowden is NOT representing himself. It is your hallucination that he is representing himself. All he has done is to refuse to appear in court and he can be declared guilty by default, but that's as far as it goes.

What he is saying is that he does not trust US laws to protect him and he is seeking asylum.

National security is in everyone's interests whether a person is consciously aware of that need or not.

Of course the government will always claim that everything it does is in the national interest and all the good sheep should just follow along. A free society gives its citizens the right to question the government and that is exactly what Snowden did.

All whistleblowers will violate coworkers trust, either explicitly or implicitly. That is a given. What is also true is that the whistleblower feels that violating colleagues' trust is the lesser evil compared to the greater evil being perpetrated by the organization. You may disagree with Snowden's choices, but that is your personal opinion. Without a court determination of NSA's wrongdoings, all we have are the leaked documents, and people can form their own opinions.

(PS. About my example that seems to trouble you so much, think of it as working for a large bank which has a skunkworks department stealing credit cards. The analogy still applies.)

The fact that, according to Snowden, the whistleblower protections do not extend to security contractors highlights a flaw in the system. All Americans who understand the core concepts of liberty, and the importance of checks on the government, would be troubled by such loopholes in the law. When a government exempts itself from checks, that is a major red flag for civil libertarians.

Chest thumping sheep will never understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[atatwolf]

I appreciate Obama speaking out but telling China to respect freedom of speech is like telling fat person not to fart

 

[Developereo]

I knew you would keep the entertaining up.

1. you have now moved from the article IV to preaching about what makes us " the land of the free". Oye don't worry about what separates us , stick to the legal basis on article IV - that you have yet to show as being violated.

2. I know this concept is getting difficult for you to comprehend, but " tagging" is the issue as no intrusion has taken place if not tagged...that is how article IV is not breached. This is the action( among others) that make it " legal". There is no "unreasonable" search and nor seizure if not tagged

3. I asked to show proof of action without a "warrant" and you not only did not give any such proof- but all you have given me is some comment in some media about hacking sys admins.

What is freaking hilarious is that, even so, that it talks about hacking...it goes to further say- QUOTE " foreign network routers, the devices that connect computer networks and transport data across the Internet. By infiltrating the computers of system administrators who work for foreign phone and Internet companies, the NSA can gain access to the calls and emails that flow over their networks." ....

All spy agencies do that

I know you have a huge chip on your shoulder and a comical tendency to wrap yourself in the flag when arguments fail you.

It is YOU who keeps bringing in this bit about 'our country' this and that and, when I show you how your understanding of the US Constitution is flawed -- comically pitiful -- you just wrap yourself tighter in the flag and keep dancing around.

As for tagging, I showed you the specific clause in the US Constitution that prohibits unlawful searches. The Constitution does not make any exception of tagging or not tagging. It is your hallucination that non-tagging gives an exemption from Constitutional protections. How about you show us why that is so.

Since it escapes your understanding, the people being specifically targeted by the NSA were American citizens. US law does not allow American citizens to be specifically targeted without a warrant. It does not matter whom they work for. If they are US citizens, they are protected by certain guarantees in the Constitution. The leaked email says that these people had done no wrong, i.e. there was no probable cause.

 

[blackface]

Chinese people look at freedom as a means not an end. The Chinese treat the nation as a living entity. Make the nation strong by whatever means. Make China strong. Who cares about the Chinese?

 

[Khan_patriot]

Yes, it is a universal right as long as it is pro-US and in compliance with US interests, the likes of Mr Snowden etc dont deserve this right.....

 

[JayAtl]

I know you have a huge chip on your shoulder and a comical tendency to wrap yourself in the flag when arguments fail you.

It is YOU who keeps bringing in this bit about 'our country' this and that and, when I show you how your understanding of the US Constitution is flawed -- comically pitiful -- you just wrap yourself tighter in the flag and keep dancing around.

As for tagging, I showed you the specific clause in the US Constitution that prohibits unlawful searches. The Constitution does not make any exception of tagging or not tagging. It is your hallucination that non-tagging gives an exemption from Constitutional protections. How about you show us why that is so.

Since it escapes your understanding, the people being specifically targeted by the NSA were American citizens. US law does not allow American citizens to be specifically targeted without a warrant. It does not matter whom they work for. If they are US citizens, they are protected by certain guarantees in the Constitution. The leaked email says that these people had done no wrong, i.e. there was no probable cause.

again with the distractions ? can't understand ' our' countries laws , yet want to continue to entertain with ignorance?

You don't seem to understand legalese or have a capacity to comprehend that you must prove the specific violations within the clause. let me try and babystep this for you:

Tagging = knowing "whom" the numbers belong to ( a huge difference). In this case they do not. By simply collecting numbers - Article IV is not breached because there is no " UNREASONABLE" search going and nor is there any seizure of any citizen.

also pay attention to the verbiage " unreasonable".... if a known terrorist number is seen calling a US number, they-
A. don't look to see ( frankly they can't even see that information because it belongs to telcoms, the telecoms who have only provided them numbers previously but NO names attached to it), to whom that number belongs to, rather they ask the FISA ( intelligence courts) for a warrant.
B. Getting access to get the private information is " reasonable" probable cause to get a warrant.

allow me to give you yet another example about " our" country whose laws you have no clue about. The supreme court has even has granted law enforcement the right to search without a warrant, if there is probable cause. So even if NSA went looking at persons name associated w/ the number initially without warrant- it is legal. But they DON'T! they ask the FISA court for a warrant- as check and balance put in place

So let us recap- Gathering numbers= legal. allowed under various intelligence acts and not a violation of the constitution( never ever been challenged as being one) and been in place since 911

BTW- you seem to be playing attorney here- I wonder why no legal minds in the US have contacted you on your emphatic assumption about our laws nor have they filed any such brief on snowden's behalf.

the leaked email is talking about spying on foreign networks, where does it say about not having a warrant OR EVEN ILLEGAL? ... if that according you this action is wrong, one would not be able to spy, period. But again- Mr. attorney why has no one filed a brief against the NSA on this issue too?

Why don't you stick to australia's law or pakistan's law... you have no clue about ours and you just spew bullpucky made up assumptions about ours. somehow yiu think you know our laws better that our legal minds and courts here.

 

[gambit]

As usual you miss the point entirely.
Snowden is NOT representing himself. It is your hallucination that he is representing himself. All he has done is to refuse to appear in court and he can be declared guilty by default, but that's as far as it goes.

What he is saying is that he does not trust US laws to protect him and he is seeking asylum.

No, it is YOU who missed the point. If Snowden interpreted the laws and acted upon his own, he had effectively represented himself.

Of course the government will always claim that everything it does is in the national interest and all the good sheep should just follow along. A free society gives its citizens the right to question the government and that is exactly what Snowden did.

Correct...And Snowden is the first to challenge the govt.

All whistleblowers will violate coworkers trust, either explicitly or implicitly. That is a given. What is also true is that the whistleblower feels that violating colleagues' trust is the lesser evil compared to the greater evil being perpetrated by the organization. You may disagree with Snowden's choices, but that is your personal opinion. Without a court determination of NSA's wrongdoings, all we have are the leaked documents, and people can form their own opinions.

Bullshit.

Your argument is based on the assumption that Snowden knew exactly what his colleagues were doing, to a man and woman, and that every actions violated ethics, laws, and morality. And that what he did was the ONLY course available for the greater public good.

The reality is that whistleblowers do not, and should not, deceive their colleagues into helping them exposing whatever misdeeds suspected. It is Snowden's deceptive actions AGAINST his colleagues, not just against the NSA, that you refuse to consider in trying to place a halo over Snowden's head.

Snowden Used Password From NSA Co-worker: Report | SecurityWeek.Com

The civilian employee told FBI agents that he provided Snowden with his personal encryption information but was "not aware" the IT contractor planned to divulge secret files to the media, according the the NSA memorandum.

But in a public Google chat in January, Snowden denied media reports that he stole or deceived fellow employees to get their log-in information.

"I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers," Snowden said.

It does not take a James Bond mentality to dismiss Snowden's claim of innocence. Even in the civilian sector, companies that have nothing to do with national security issues have secrets and the proverbial 'need to know' access rights for their employees.

(PS. About my example that seems to trouble you so much, think of it as working for a large bank which has a skunkworks department stealing credit cards. The analogy still applies.)

The analogy is still nonsense. The NSA have periodic Congressional oversight while any bank that does what you hypothesize does not have any oversight by anyone. Oversight implies legal approval and protection to start, and the supervision is there to ensure actions do not violate certain boundaries.

So if you want to stick to this absurd analogy, show us where theft is legally sanction by laws.

The fact that, according to Snowden, the whistleblower protections do not extend to security contractors highlights a flaw in the system. All Americans who understand the core concepts of liberty, and the importance of checks on the government, would be troubled by such loopholes in the law. When a government exempts itself from checks, that is a major red flag for civil libertarians.

Correct...According to Snowden...

Subpart 3.9—Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees

I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I would like to see specifically which law or section of laws that Snowden referenced before he made his decision to act. The above source is just one of many examples available to the public.

Bottom line is this:

- Snowden does not have to violate his colleagues' trust via deception.

- Snowden could have achieve the same goal without the involuntary involvement of his colleagues. Perhaps the degree of material exposure would not be as great as we see it today, but what we see today gives us a clue into Snowden's mentality in that he wanted to be a companion to Julian Assange.

- Snowden could have availed himself of the nearly unlimited army of 'legal eagles' in the US and to make a name for one's self, any 'legal eagle' would have represented Snowden FOR FREE. If I, a non-lawyer, can find a complex law regarding whistleblowers as above, what do you think a team of accomplished lawyers from the ACLU can find, interpret, and fight on Snowden's behalf ? Keyword search for you: 'ben wizner snowden'.

- Congressional oversight may be tardy but unlike your absurd analogy about theft by banks being the same as the NSA legitimate mission of national security, if the sins of the Executive branch is great enough, said oversight will accelerate. Snowden could not have been so stupid as to be ignorant of the built-in adversarial relationship between the Executive and the Legislative branches as structured by the US Constitution.

Chest thumping sheep will never understand what all the fuss is about.

Speak for yourself about being a sheep. Looks like you pretty much put aside any kind of critical thinking when it comes to criticizing US. Your posting of the Fourth Amendment was hilarious. Remove that 'THINK TANK' tag, more like 'THINKING TANKED' for you.

 

[JayAtl]

Speak for yourself about being a sheep. Looks like you pretty much put aside any kind of critical thinking when it comes to criticizing US. Your posting of the Fourth Amendment was hilarious. Remove that 'THINK TANK' tag, more like 'THINKING TANKED' for you.

That is classic... I am going to borrow it next time if ya don't mind