I think everyone does know it but what's the answer? Never use the internet again? Go live in the woods? Eat small animals and drink from the stream? End up tripping on your beard and hitting your head on a rock only to float face down on the stream that was once your life source? Are we meant to use services like the Tor Project where everything is 'meant' to be completely anon? How do we know these aren't run by the CIA or NSA to spy on people tech savvy enough not to be spied on. They are doing an excellent job on making everyone paranoid aren't they? I see now Obama has threatened Ecuador with trade sanctions if they take Snowden and Russia have said he can stay in Moscow if he stops anti-American activities and he said 'no-ski' - I just saw it on the ticker on RT.
I remember the time computers before computers were everywhere, and before everyone and their dog had a PC. I have to be honest, this isn't the way I remember the early 1990s, maybe I just didn't think much about it at the time. Mind, in my area of old blightly they didn't stop showing child-friendly 'What to do in a nuclear attack' videos until '94. If this isn't sarcasm, they are doing a terrible job of making people paranoid. I suspect, too, that that is the point. My point isn't 'ZOMGobbles guys', just be aware that this technology can be easily exploited. It's better to be aware that paranoid I find. I find it interesting that this morning it was reported he has abandoned his request for asylum in Russia. Most of today's news has been taken up with what's happening in Egypt.
Ahh yes but I'm not panicking over it. If your employer can find a way into your facebook information, so can the government, so can everyone. The only difference is one is a civilian organization, the other is the government. OMGZ zeh government is on to my lol-cats posts!!! Everything we say on this forum is being archived by bots which the moderators have already said exist and they cannot fully get rid of. We do not know who the information goes to.
I think Snowden is employing typical diversion tactic and the Russians are helping him with it. I think it's all designed to enable him to disappear before the CIA catches him. I hope he succeeds!
I agree that technology can exploited, but don't people have the right to be mad when their emails are being stored and read? After all, isn't email just an extension of regular mail? Me too.
Has anybody actually seen him in the Russian transit zone? I think it would be hilarious if he's already in a safe haven.
Of course, I'm sure privacy is a human right too. Actually, you might know better than me about that.
In the US, privacy isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. So it's not considered a human right. I know that the definition of "liberty" has been broadened to include some aspects of privacy, such as protection of personal information. Because privacy is so poorly defined in the Constitution, coming up with a legal, or even a scholarly, definition of it is tough. And that in turn makes it tough to determine what is private and what isn't. There was this paper I had to read in one of my classes where the author came up with a scenario in which two people are having a conversation in their home and the windows are left open. A third person walks by the window and hears part of the conversation (he is assumed to be on public property). At this point, two things can happen. The third person either keeps on walking or he stops and listens to the conversation. The paper focuses on whether the latter act is considered an invasion of privacy. The author gives both sides of the argument, but he doesn't argue for either side because of how complicated the issue is. And I agree. It really is a complicated issue.
That's very interesting. I imagine, sadly, that when your founding fathers wrote the constitution they couldn't have imagined what kind of things now open to pretty much any modern government.
My thoughts for the past week [MENTION=5272]thirdwind[/MENTION]: it's actually a very common scenario in doctor's offices. Sometimes you can hear the conversation going on in the room next door, or it gets really hot and you have a choice between opening the window, so people outside can hear everything, or keeping the room temp at 35 C. Ethically, in medicine at least, it's the responsible person in charge (such as the doctor who opened the window knowing the issues involved) who is at fault for breaking confidentiality. Outside persons bear no responsibility even if they eavesdrop, willingly or because they have no choice in the matter. Eventually it can become an organisational issue if the practice owners refuse to find a solution and keep forcing this to happen. But that's almost impossible to pursue legally, so everyone just ignores it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/russian-couple-spies-court-germany-975106-Jul2013/ This Russian couple were both sentenced to 5-6 years prison time today for spying on Germany. Where does that leave the US who have just admitted spying on everybody? Obama's attitude being, "We all do it, so what?" http://news.yahoo.com/obama-suggests-spying-nations-allies-common-210845024.html
[MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: When psychopaths are caught in the act of doing something cruel or criminal, they typically respond with flippancy, minimising, refusal of responsibility and blaming others.
This is all becoming quite the charade now. While all French parties put pressure on Hollande (PM) to offer Snowden asylum, his response was to put EU/US trade talks on hold until Obama promises to stop spying; Hollande said he was putting his foot down, then within hours, while suspecting Snowden is on his way to Bolivia, refused the plane from entering French airspace, along with Italy, Spain and Portugal. The Bolivian presidential plane has landed in Austria, has been boarded and searched by Austrian officials and they have found nothing. The Bolivian plane was almost out of fuel and they say the President's life was put at severe risk, hence having to turn back. South American Presidents of Ecuador, Venezuala and Argentina have called this an act of aggression from Europe at the behest of the US and have called an emergency summit. Its all heating up.
Even if the bastards win, still, a fair opposition was mounted on international level, something that was unfathomable even a decade ago. Think 'Les Miserables'
This isn't exactly true. There is no explicit right to privacy set forth in the Constitution, but Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution since the early 20th century has been that there is a broad right of privacy protected in the Constitution, and of course many Supreme Court cases have come out the way they did specifically because the Court recognized a Constitutional Right of Privacy. One well-known case is Griswold v. Connecticut where the Court found a broad zone of privacy protected by the Constitution and struck down a state law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married people.There are many other cases where the Right of Privacy is important.
The problem I have is that the word "privacy" is being used synonymously with either "freedom" or "liberty" when interpreting the Constitution. Without a specific definition of privacy, I feel like interpretations of the Constitution can go either way.
Given that there's no explicit protection, later Court decisions could certainly curtail it or, I suppose, eliminate it. Though at this point it is well-settled law. If you look at the privacy cases, the Court is often talking about "privacy," as opposed to using it to refer to liberty. So I think there's definitely substance to the privacy part of things under current case law. It will keep evolving, hopefully in the direction of greater protection.
I see Bolivians burning French flags and our President Francois Hollande is grovelling for forgiveness after refusing their President entry into French airspace.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) spells out CLEARLY that Privacy is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 Consider Article 12 of the UDHR: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." So basically, snooping on anybody's private data is a breach of Article 12 of the UDHR!
Yeah, but you have to use "breach" loosely, since that's not law. It's a nice statement by the UN, but has no legal effect.
According to Le Monde, France spies on its citizens' communications. I can't say I'm surprised by the news, but I wonder how Le Monde got a hold of this information. Another "whistleblower" perhaps?
Le Monde aren't giving up their source but French papers aren't speculating either http://www.france24.com/en/20130704-france-uses-vast-electronic-spying-network-monde-dgse
I could sympathize with Snowden if he had released something truly earthshaking, but the thing that most surprised me about this story is that it was ever kept secret. Who on this website was shocked to learn that the government has invasive internet surveillance programs? Please tell me. I'd bet that a lot of the libertarians currently making shocked faces at this news thought the same thing but suspected that everyone else didn't believe it, and went ahead and jumped on the bandwagon. The US is after Snowden because he's probably leaking extremely sensitive intelligence to China, Russia, Cuba, and Ecuador, none of which will be made public. PRISM is a cover story.