EU court ruling WTF
-
@blakeyrat said:
Wolfenstein
Without the Nazi imagery, Wolfenstein was probably really confusing for Germans. "Wait, am I plumber traveling through an endless sewer? Oh, there's another plumber wearing his plumber's coveralls.. Wait, he's shooting at me!!"
-
@random said:
e.g. the player shouldn't be allowed to play as a nazi soldier
You've just ruined, like, 90% of games.
@random said:
Spiegel scandal
That really doesn't seem to be the same at all. Snowden leaked volumes classified information, and gave files directly to enemies of the US. What happened in the Spiegel scandal would be legal in the US.
I think there may be some confusion here. Snowden publicly blew the whistle on the NSA bulk metadata collection program, which was almost certainly legal, and something I agree with. He also leaked bajillions of documents which directly put at risk the lives of American intelligence operators, as well as those of our allies and of people who worked with the US. He ended up in Russia, which just happens to be his country's biggest enemy, and God only knows what he handed over there. We do know he revealed tons of information on intelligence operations against Russia, Iran and China in a way those countries gained that information. That's not whistle-blowing, that's treason, straight-up.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
Wolfenstein
Without the Nazi imagery, Wolfenstein was probably really confusing for Germans. "Wait, am I plumber traveling through an endless sewer? Oh, there's another plumber wearing his plumber's coveralls.. Wait, he's shooting at me!!"
They probably just swapped the swastika for a hammer and sickle. Like when homefront changed all the Chinese to North Koreans.
Speaking of, anyone else think that Tom Clancy had clairvoyant powers? Nobody else would have predicted the new Russian nationalism.
-
@random said:
@blakeyrat said:
Either way, the general point "EU freedom of speech is not even in the same galaxy as US law" is definitely true.
Another example: In Germany, saying "I hope someone shoots Snowden in the face" on public TV can get you into prison for up to five years, even if noone actually follows your request.
That might be considered inciting violence in the US, but would probably only be prosecuted if someone did shoot him, and probably not even then.
Actually, against Snowden I doubt it would be. But if you said it against someone like a President or a celebrity or something, you could land in hot water.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@random said:
for example, what Snowden did would be totally legal in Germany
So Germany allows its intelligence workers to spy for other countries ... ?
[citation needed]
That's what I was asking him. Because it seems like even laid-back Germany* would have a problem with that.
(*This is a joke. Germans are not laid-back.)
You seem to have totally missed the point of my response, in which I dispute the validity of your premise, that Ed Snowden was spying for other countries.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
We do know he revealed tons of information on intelligence operations against Russia, Iran and China in a way those countries gained that information. That's not whistle-blowing, that's treason, straight-up.
That part is new to me and something that would be illegal in Germany as well. Citation?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@random said:
@blakeyrat said:
Either way, the general point "EU freedom of speech is not even in the same galaxy as US law" is definitely true.
Another example: In Germany, saying "I hope someone shoots Snowden in the face" on public TV can get you into prison for up to five years, even if noone actually follows your request.
That might be considered inciting violence in the US, but would probably only be prosecuted if someone did shoot him, and probably not even then.
If you described the US law correctly, the difference is that the German law is against inciting any criminal act and specifically states that even if noone actually commits the crime, you can get into prison. The maximum punishment of five years of course doesn't count if someone actually commits the crime, in this case you can be punished like an accomplice.
Edit: The only reason I mentioned that example is because AFAIK it actually happened.
-
@Snooder said:
Speaking of, anyone else think that Tom Clancy had clairvoyant powers? Nobody else would have predicted the new Russian nationalism.
Are you.. serious? Russia had a brief crisis-of-confidence in the mid-90s when they elected a drunk to the Presidency, but ever since Putin came onto the scene, they've been increasingly aggressive. They invaded Georgia in 2008. They've extorted money from EU countries several times by threatening to shut off the gas throughout the last decade. They installed a puppet dictator into the Ukrainian Presidency in 2004. They helped Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the US invasion. I mean, I could go on-and-on, but I thought it has been blatantly obvious since 2002 that Putin is a militant strongman intent on strengthening his empire at the expense of NATO and the EU..
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
You seem to have totally missed the point of my response, in which I dispute the validity of your premise, that Ed Snowden was spying for other countries.
What do you think handing over critical intelligence to enemy nations is? If Bob Hope nicked some OSS records and handed them over to Hitler, would that not be spying for Germany?
Did Snowden have a pre-arranged agreement with Russia to steal info? There's reason to suspect it, but the IC is keeping tight-lipped on the whole thing. But even if he had no pre-existing arrangement, he certainly engaged in spying and treason when he stole information regarding intelligence operations against Russia, China and Iran and then handed that data over.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
They invaded Georgia in 2008.
According to a report issued by the EU, the invasion itself was justified as Georgia broke international laws first. The important part and the actual problem is that the Russian troops are still there.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
You seem to have totally missed the point of my response, in which I dispute the validity of your premise, that Ed Snowden was spying for other countries.
What do you think handing over critical intelligence to enemy nations is? If Bob Hope nicked some OSS records and handed them over to Hitler, would that not be spying for Germany?
Did Snowden have a pre-arranged agreement with Russia to steal info? There's reason to suspect it, but the IC is keeping tight-lipped on the whole thing. But even if he had no pre-existing arrangement, he certainly engaged in spying and treason when he stole information regarding intelligence operations against Russia, China and Iran and then handed that data over.
I think Mason's problem is that he - like me - has never read about Snowden handing the whole information over to Russia. AFAIK, only the journalists have all the information and the information which is released to the public lacks all of the details which would actually endanger any intelligence operation.
Call me naive, but I will not believe he committed high treason until you cite some credible sources.
BTW: AFAIK, Russia wasn't exactly his first choice, which makes your claim that this was pre-arranged dubious.
-
@random said:
@morbiuswilters said:
We do know he revealed tons of information on intelligence operations against Russia, Iran and China in a way those countries gained that information. That's not whistle-blowing, that's treason, straight-up.
That part is new to me and something that would be illegal in Germany as well. Citation?
Yeah, that's news to a lot of people, seeing as how it never happened. Morbs is pulling allegations out of thin air.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, that's news to a lot of people, seeing as how it never happened. Morbs is pulling allegations out of thin air.
You know, even as a European, I get why you guys hate Assange (he's a self-righteous asshole without morals) and why you prosecuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning (he actually leaked way too much unnecessarily specific information and was a member of the military). But I simply don't get the hatred towards Snowden. Yes, he ended up in Russia, but doesn't the prototypical libertarian US citizen approve of his intentions? (Sorry for quoting stereotypes, it's just to prove my point.)
-
@random said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Yeah, that's news to a lot of people, seeing as how it never happened. Morbs is pulling allegations out of thin air.
You know, even as a European, I get why you guys hate Assange (he's a self-righteous asshole without morals) and why you prosecuted Bradley/Chelsea Manning (he actually leaked way too much unnecessarily specific information and was a member of the military). But I simply don't get the hatred towards Snowden. Yes, he ended up in Russia, but doesn't the prototypical libertarian US citizen approve of his intentions? (Sorry for quoting stereotypes, it's just to prove my point.)
The "prototypical US citizen" is hardly a Libertarian; they're an abberation, very much in the minority and with any luck they're going to stay there. But most US citizens do approve of what Snowden has done, because he put important inormation in the hands of the people and he did it right. This last bit is crucial. He didn't go to some sleazy, outspoken anti-American website owner, he didn't just turn things over willy-nilly without any care for the consequences, he didn't come up with any emotionaly-charged videos that may or may not be reliable in what they show. It was obvious from day 1 that Bradley Manning was nothing but an attention whore, and if anyone still doesn't believe that, they need look no further for proof than the "Chelsea Manning" nonsense he came up with after he had already lost. But Ed Snowden actually did what Bradley Manning should have done, and he's a genuine patriot and a hero for it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@random said:
for example, what Snowden did would be totally legal in Germany
So Germany allows its intelligence workers to spy for other countries and leak state secrets? Hmm.. would you like to test that out?
No, it doesn't. But as Snowden didn't do that, that's a red herring. What he did would be legal.
The specific law to that is@§93 StGB said:
Begriff des Staatsgeheimnisses
(1) Staatsgeheimnisse sind Tatsachen, Gegenstände oder Erkenntnisse, die nur einem begrenzten Personenkreis zugänglich sind und vor einer fremden Macht geheimgehalten werden müssen, um die Gefahr eines schweren Nachteils für die äußere Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland abzuwenden.
(2) Tatsachen, die gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung oder unter Geheimhaltung gegenüber den Vertragspartnern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen zwischenstaatlich vereinbarte Rüstungsbeschränkungen verstoßen, sind keine Staatsgeheimnisse.With some google translate help:
Notion of state secrecy
(1) state secrets are facts, objects or findings that are only accessible to a limited number of people and have to be kept secret from a foreign power, to avert the risk of serious detriment to the external security of the Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) facts which violate the democratic constitutional structure based on the principal of liberty, or which under confidentiality with the contractors of the Federal Republic of Germany violate against interstate agreed arms limitations, are not state secrets.To relate it to your case, the 4th amandment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The NSA's total surveillance violates every citizen's right by putting everybody under universal suspicion. It therefore is illegal and violates the constitution.
Any such fact, under German law, is by defintion not a state secret.
He also didn't spy for other countries by revealing to the general public that the government is massively violating the law. That is a public service in any sane person's book.But of course you guys prefer the "shoot the messenger" way. He showed us how we're being raped, let's hunt him down.
On a related note: did the people who willingly ordered/executed killing civilians/journalists ever get tried for that, as Manning did for revealing the murders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect they rather got a medal for it.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
But most US citizens do approve of what Snowden has done, because he put important inormation in the hands of the people and he did it right.
That's what I had hoped to hear, because the only thing I read about in German newspapers was the reaction of the right wing of the Republican party and the official anti-Snowden propaganda your government (had to) spread. Unfortunately, I haven't been in the US for years, so I didn't know anything about the opinion of the general public. I'm glad to hear they didn't fall for the propaganda.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
He ended up in Russia, which just happens to be his country's biggest enemy, and God only knows what he handed over there.
And why did he end up in Russia? Because he planned to go to Russia??
No, because the US invalidated his passport and made him stateless. He was granted Asylum in some South American countries, but he can't get there because the US would stop any aircraft with him inside. They forced the aircraft of the president of (IIRC) Bolivia to landing to search the aircraft, suspecting it had Snowden on board.
Imagine that, the diplomatic repercussions this should have. If Obama's Air Force One was headed to Germany and France would force it down and try to search it... Well, Secret Service would shoot anyone trying to enter, but you'd probably see this act as a declaration of war to begin with.
-
@topspin said:
Imagine that, the diplomatic repercussions this should have. If Obama's Air Force One was headed to Germany and France would force it down and try to search it... Well, Secret Service would shoot anyone trying to enter, but you'd probably see this act as a declaration of war to begin with.
And Merkel would probably applaud the Secret Service for their reaction. I never understood the hatred towards her until I had to witness her (non-)reaction to Snowden's revelations. She could have at least pretended to take them seriously and confront the US government, but she didn't even manage to do that. Since then, I despise her.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
But most US citizens do approve of what Snowden has done, because he put important inormation in the hands of the people and he did it right. This last bit is crucial. He didn't go to some sleazy, outspoken anti-American website owner, he didn't just turn things over willy-nilly without any care for the consequences, he didn't come up with any emotionaly-charged videos that may or may not be reliable in what they show.
I don't think he quite did it right. He would have had a much stronger moral position if he had framed the leak as an act of civil disobedience. He could have said, "Yes, what I did may have been against the law, but I am willing to accept the consequences because it's so important for the principles and the nation that I love." Instead, he went straight to one country that is a US adversary in intelligence matters (China), then another (Russia). That just looks bad, weakens his case, and creates the impression that he was sharing/selling secrets, which would be treasonous. If he'd had the courage to put himself at the mercy of the court (and as a civilian employee, it would be a civilian court, not a military one), he would have had a platform for making his case to the public, even if much of the evidence would be be secret. The ensuing public discussion would have been much more serious and balanced. At the very least, he should have gone to an allied or more neutral country.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
At one point, there were some places that would not hire you until you gave them your facebook login so they could look into you, but I think that eventually faced legal issues and is no longer the case.
The mind boggles at this. Who would ever even admit to having a Facebook account at a job interview? I certainly wouldn't.
-
@FrostCat said:
Who would ever even admit to having a Facebook account at a job interview?
Someone applying for a job at Facebook? After all, they employ people too (as well as creepily spying on everyone, of course).
-
-
-
@barfoo said:
If he'd had the courage to put himself at the mercy of the court (and as a civilian employee, it would be a civilian court, not a military one), he would have had a platform for making his case to the public, even if much of the evidence would be be secret. The ensuing public discussion would have been much more serious and balanced.
And I'm sure that Mr. Snowden would have derived considerable comfort from that balance and seriousness, as he contemplated it while being beaten and raped by the largest representative of the US prison industrial complex his former employer could find for the job.
Give the man some credit for understanding the nature of the system he worked within.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
Morbs is pulling allegations out of thin air.
No, he's not that creative. He's just parroting Faux News talking points as usual.
-
tl;dr: If you do business in Europe, European law is applicable regardless where your servers happen to be. Search engine operators are responsible for personal data they index. In some circumstances they are obliged to remove search results, sometimes even if the original publication is legitimate (e.g. if it is outdated or no longer useful to them). Typically personal rights (respect for private and family life, protection of personal data) override (economic) interests of search engine operators and the general public. A notable exception is a preponderant interest of the general public.
-
I remember some years ago in Czechia a book publisher was ruled by court to remove some information. So what they did was to republish the book with that information removed. And as appendix they included the court ruling, which included full text of the paragraphs to be removed.
It would be cool if Google could pull something similar here.
-
@Bulb said:
I remember some years ago in Czechia a book publisher was ruled by court to remove some information. So what they did was to republish the book with that information removed. And as appendix they included the court ruling, which included full text of the paragraphs to be removed.
They already do with censored stuff - usually with a link to chillingeffects.org.
It would be cool if Google could pull something similar here.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Anything I post, I should have the right to remove.
Has that *ever* been true? Consider anyone who posted an editorial (letter to the editor, etc.) in a newspaper or magazine. Then they decide they want to "remove" it....How are all of the copies in libraries, homes, et.al. going to be updated?
For anyone of the age of consent (and of legally sound mind), the standard should be - Dont say, print, post, etc. ANYTHING, ANYWHERE unless you are willing to accept the consequences.
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@blakeyrat said:
Anything I post, I should have the right to remove.
Has that ever been true?Oh CPUWizard, my old friend. I know you have problems with the word "should". No, it has not ever been true. But I should have that ability. Maybe hit a dictionary on the word "should" this time before replying.
@TheCPUWizard said:
Consider anyone who posted an editorial (letter to the editor, etc.) in a newspaper or magazine. Then they decide they want to "remove" it....How are all of the copies in libraries, homes, et.al. going to be updated?
Hey moron, maybe read the other stuff in my post also, before replying. I already talked about this.
@TheCPUWizard said:
For anyone of the age of consent (and of legally sound mind), the standard should be - Dont say, print, post, etc. ANYTHING, ANYWHERE unless you are willing to accept the consequences.
You do realize there's nothing to prevent 12-year-olds to post whatever on the web, right? I mean I agree with your viewpoint-- the problem is the stuff I wanted to remove, I posted long before I reached the age of consent. (Not that I think that should matter.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
You do realize there's nothing to prevent 12-year-olds to post whatever on the web, right? I mean I agree with your viewpoint-- the problem is the stuff I wanted to remove, I posted long before I reached the age of consent. (Not that I think that should matter.)
Preface: I totally agree in the idea of a timed self-destruct* on anything that someone under a certain age** posts on the internet. I know I wish there had been something like for me. The caveat to that, is how many 12 year olds are on the internet right now pretending to be 18? How can you determine whether or not to blow that stuff up? I've been clicking on "Agree and Enter, I am over the legal age to view this content" for many years before that was true.
*(opt-outable for those rare specimens that aren't complete shitheads)
**(12? 13? 15? 18? I'm not sure what the cut-off point is)
-
This sounds a lot like Nineteen Eighty-Four (the book by George Orwell) where the state edited newspapers, reprinting past editions of the paper in order to make the current reality appear as if it were better than the past.
From Wikipedia
At the Ministry of Truth, Winston is an editor responsible for historical revisionism, concording the past to the Party's ever-changing official version of the past; thus making the government of Oceania seem omniscient. As such, he perpetually rewrites records and alters photographs, rendering the deleted people as "unpersons"; the original documents are incinerated in a "memory hole". Despite enjoying the intellectual challenges of historical revisionism, he becomes increasingly fascinated by the true past and tries to learn more about it.
Except of course in this case, the "revisionist" is an individual, rather than the government.
-
@DrPepper said:
This sounds a lot like Nineteen Eighty-Four (the book by George Orwell) where the state edited newspapers, reprinting past editions of the paper in order to make the current reality appear as if it were better than the past.
From Wikipedia
At the Ministry of Truth, Winston is an editor responsible for historical revisionism, concording the past to the Party's ever-changing official version of the past; thus making the government of Oceania seem omniscient. As such, he perpetually rewrites records and alters photographs, rendering the deleted people as "unpersons"; the original documents are incinerated in a "memory hole". Despite enjoying the intellectual challenges of historical revisionism, he becomes increasingly fascinated by the true past and tries to learn more about it.
Except of course in this case, the "revisionist" is an individual, rather than the government.
No. The newspaper doesn't change, just Google's link to it. The information isn't being edited or removed. The means of anybody in the world instantly accessing the information, 24/7 is being removed.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I believe the point is that the individual can "report a given link/page". Again, not based on query and also not based on content, just "remove this link from search results".
We talked about this a little in the BAD IDEAS THREAD (I'm too tired and lazy to go find it right now). I posted a link to a press release from the court itself, and the language they used seemed to be saying that google wasn't allowed to show the link when people searched using the guys name. The idea being that you could still find the page for other reasons, but not as a search about the guy. The law seems retarded that something like this should be sort of censored.
Another important bit about this case was the jurisdiction issue. Google has a corporate presence in Spain, which gave the court / law jurisdiction over them. If this gets big, I'd expect them to abandon their European outposts rather than deal with this clusterfuck.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Hmmm? Where they have offices doesn't matter, it's that they do business in Europe, surely?I believe the point is that the individual can "report a given link/page". Again, not based on query and also not based on content, just "remove this link from search results".
We talked about this a little in the BAD IDEAS THREAD (I'm too tired and lazy to go find it right now). I posted a link to a press release from the court itself, and the language they used seemed to be saying that google wasn't allowed to show the link when people searched using the guys name. The idea being that you could still find the page for other reasons, but not as a search about the guy. The law seems retarded that something like this should be sort of censored.
Another important bit about this case was the jurisdiction issue. Google has a corporate presence in Spain, which gave the court / law jurisdiction over them. If this gets big, I'd expect them to abandon their European outposts rather than deal with this clusterfuck.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@jasmine2501 said:
Google is part of the free press, and it can't be asked to censor itself.
Uhhh... well, besides the fact that Google isn't really a member of the press, and the press can be censored for abusing their speech anyway, and Google is engaging in commercial speech which generally has far fewer protections than other speech, your point is spot-on.. O_o
This is a pet peeve of mine. "Freedom of the press" is talking about printing presses, which is to say, written communication as opposed to spoken communication. Blogs are just the modern version of pamphlets. I think we're slowly working our way back from thinking media companies somehow have special rights that others don't (like firing bossy women).
-
@KillaCoda said:
Hmmm? Where they have offices doesn't matter, it's that they do business in Europe, surely?
The press release talked specifically about Google Spain as being key to jurisdiction.
-
@boomzilla said:
@KillaCoda said:
Hmmm? Where they have offices doesn't matter, it's that they do business in Europe, surely?
The press release talked specifically about Google Spain as being key to jurisdiction.
Jusrisdiction is a many-layered (man-lawyered) thing. You can base jurisdiction either on where the offices are or on doing business (or on several other factors) but it's much easier (at least in the US) to base it on where the offices are.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@KillaCoda said:
Hmmm? Where they have offices doesn't matter, it's that they do business in Europe, surely?
The press release talked specifically about Google Spain as being key to jurisdiction.
Jusrisdiction is a many-layered (man-lawyered) thing. You can base jurisdiction either on where the offices are or on doing business (or on several other factors) but it's much easier (at least in the US) to base it on where the offices are.The press release:
@Court of Justice of the European Union said:
As regards the directive’s territorial scope, the Court observes that Google Spain is a subsidiary of
Google Inc. on Spanish territory and, therefore, an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of the
directive. The Court rejects the argument that the processing of personal data by Google Search is
not carried out in the context of the activities of that establishment in Spain. The Court holds, in this
regard, that where such data are processed for the purposes of a search engine operated by an
undertaking which, although it has its seat in a non-member State, has an establishment in a
Member State, the processing is carried out ‘in the context of the activities’ of that establishment,
within the meaning of the directive, if the establishment is intended to promote and sell, in the
Member State in question, advertising space offered by the search engine in order to make the
service offered by the engine profitable.I suppose they might have decided the jurisdiction was OK even without Google Spain being there, assuming they still sold ads geared towards Spain.
-
@boomzilla said:
@KillaCoda said:
Hmmm? Where they have offices doesn't matter, it's that they do business in Europe, surely?
The press release talked specifically about Google Spain as being key to jurisdiction.
They also have their EMEA headquarters here in Ireland, also in the EU, and offices in multiple other EU countries. I don't know how feasible it is to just "run away" from this one.
-
@boomzilla said:
I suppose they might have decided the jurisdiction was OK even without Google Spain being there, buttuming they still sold ads geared towards Spain.
I agree with your buttessment of this.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
The "prototypical US citizen" is hardly a Libertarian; they're an abberation, very much in the minority and with any luck they're going to stay there
Oh really?
-
@flabdablet said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Morbs is pulling allegations out of thin air.
No, he's not that creative. He's just parroting Faux News talking points as usual.
Or the democratic underground, or the Bloomberg review, or the Australian prime minister, or ...
-
@boomzilla said:
the language they used seemed to be saying that google wasn't allowed to show the link when people searched using the guys name. The idea being that you could still find the page for other reasons, but not as a search about the guy. The law seems retarded that something like this should be sort of censored.
Searching for a person by name returns a potentially very detailed profile. This interferes with that person's fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data. Consequently, it may be justified to hide certain search results in this context.
-
@topspin said:
And why did he end up in Russia? Because he planned to go to Russia??
No, because the US invalidated his passport and made him stateless.
After he leaked critical intelligence information to China, Russia and Iran. Is this really so hard for you to follow?
@topspin said:
They forced the aircraft of the president of (IIRC) Bolivia to landing to search the aircraft, suspecting it had Snowden on board.
Good.
@topspin said:
Imagine that, the diplomatic repercussions this should have. If Obama's Air Force One was headed to Germany and France would force it down and try to search it... Well, Secret Service would shoot anyone trying to enter, but you'd probably see this act as a declaration of war to begin with.
If Germany or France tried to force down an American aircraft, there'd be a massive, radioactive sea in the middle of Western Europe within the hour. And Europe would be a nicer place for it.
-
@random said:
According to a report issued by the EU, the invasion itself was justified as Georgia broke international laws first.
Who cares what the EU says? The EU is a joke; a mistake from the very conception. Christ, it's deteriorating right before our very eyes. It doesn't have 5 years left.
That said, maybe the US can trade the EU (minus the UK.. or not, I don't really care) to Russia for a pack of smokes.
-
@random said:
ou know, even as a European, I get why you guys hate Assange (he's a self-righteous asshole without morals)
He is, but he's also not an American citizen, so he's not guilty of treason. Now maybe he's an intelligence risk and should be dealt with, but I don't consider him very culpable in any of this. A douche, sure, but he never violated an oath that I know of.
@random said:
Yes, he ended up in Russia, but doesn't the prototypical libertarian US citizen approve of his intentions? (Sorry for quoting stereotypes, it's just to prove my point.)
If he only leaked the information about illegal domestic surveillance, he'd be my hero. He leaked information about operations all of the world. Everything from tapping Merkel's phone (which is something the NSA is supposed to be doing--it's what we pay them for) to operations interdicting data in actual enemy nations.
He tried to trade information to South American countries for amnesty. That's treason.
-
@topspin said:
To relate it to your case, the 4th amandment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The NSA's total surveillance violates every citizen's right by putting everybody under universal suspicion. It therefore is illegal and violates the constitution.
Any such fact, under German law, is by defintion not a state secret.
He also didn't spy for other countries by revealing to the general public that the government is massively violating the law. That is a public service in any sane person's book.But of course you guys prefer the "shoot the messenger" way. He showed us how we're being raped, let's hunt him down.
You really don't know the first thing about it, do you? If you knew anything, you'd know he leaked way more information than just about illegal domestic surveillance. A simple Google search would have educated you. But I guess you're the typical lazy, smelly, ignorant Euro-trash. Sad, really.
-
@random said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
But most US citizens do approve of what Snowden has done, because he put important inormation in the hands of the people and he did it right.
That's what I had hoped to hear, because the only thing I read about in German newspapers was the reaction of the right wing of the Republican party and the official anti-Snowden propaganda your government (had to) spread. Unfortunately, I haven't been in the US for years, so I didn't know anything about the opinion of the general public. I'm glad to hear they didn't fall for the propaganda.
Wheeler's lying, as usual. Snowden is widely-reviled and he did nothing right, unless you consider massive treason right.
Once again, it's really sad. To see how willfully ignorant so many people are.. you live in an age of unparalleled access to information, but you probably have less intellectual curiosity than a medieval fishmonger..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@topspin said:
And why did he end up in Russia? Because he planned to go to Russia??
No, because the US invalidated his passport and made him stateless.
After he leaked critical intelligence information to China, Russia and Iran. Is this really so hard for you to follow?
So when we call you on your crap, your response is to simply double down on the same baseless assertion, without providing the slightest shred of evidence?
Then again, I suppose that's to be expected from a global warming denier...
@topspin said:
They forced the aircraft of the president of (IIRC) Bolivia to landing to search the aircraft, suspecting it had Snowden on board.
Good.
@topspin said:
Imagine that, the diplomatic repercussions this should have. If Obama's Air Force One was headed to Germany and France would force it down and try to search it... Well, Secret Service would shoot anyone trying to enter, but you'd probably see this act as a declaration of war to begin with.
If Germany or France tried to force down an American aircraft, there'd be a massive, radioactive sea in the middle of Western Europe within the hour. And Europe would be a nicer place for it.
Yeah, because that's totally how we react in cases like that... oh, wait, it isn't. Morbs is just a moron.
