Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Ed Snowdon Hero Or Villan
47 Answers
http://
The man behind blowing the whistle on the American NSA's Prism project engineering direct access into the servers belonginging to Google, Facebook, YouTube, Skype Microsoft and Yahoo and who knows maybe even Answerbank.
Now hiding out in Hong Kong - is he a hero or a villan?
The man behind blowing the whistle on the American NSA's Prism project engineering direct access into the servers belonginging to Google, Facebook, YouTube, Skype Microsoft and Yahoo and who knows maybe even Answerbank.
Now hiding out in Hong Kong - is he a hero or a villan?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
so no one minds being spied on or perhaps targeted because of something they said to a friend or family member via mail, twitter, i am not sure about hero, but why should the powers that be spy on all to catch the few. Don't the intelligence services have enough people, and technology to target those who are specifically involved in terror activities. I don't like this one little bit, the nonsense about well if you have done nothing wrong keeps rearing it's ugly head. People who have no connections to criminal or terror activities are still picked up by the police, security services. CCTV on every corner, e mail, phone calls and social network sites monitored, doesn't this surely make you uneasy.
em.....no.....it makes me feel at ease.
I am just Joe Bloggs and my interest lies in the fact that any organisation, using whatever methods, picks out the " bad guys."
If the " innocent " are also surveyed, then so be it.
One cannot have 100% security with 100 % privacy and that suits me as .ong as innocent children and adults are not slaughtered.
I am just Joe Bloggs and my interest lies in the fact that any organisation, using whatever methods, picks out the " bad guys."
If the " innocent " are also surveyed, then so be it.
One cannot have 100% security with 100 % privacy and that suits me as .ong as innocent children and adults are not slaughtered.
not to mention other reasons people may be targeted, on benefits, are they cheats, single person in a house, or do they have a partner, tax cheats, and so forth, there are many things overall surveillance can be used for, not to catch the bad guys, but the good guys too. I read recently about how secret courts in Britain have the power to send people to prison, this without the bother of legal representation present for the accused. Locked up for reasons that should not happen. I don't see this as being remotely democratic at all
Let's get the Franklin quote right, if it's to be relied on:
"Those who give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" [Notes on a proposed constitution for Pennsylvania, 1775 ]
What essential liberty is being given up here, and for what temporary safety?
"Those who give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" [Notes on a proposed constitution for Pennsylvania, 1775 ]
What essential liberty is being given up here, and for what temporary safety?
is it democratic if it's something the vast majority of people in UK don't want, but the powers that be go ahead with it anyway. Say for example we didn't get any say on adopting the Euro, the government did it and it was a disaster, that isn't my idea of democracy, it's one where you don't need to spy on everyone because there are a small minority causing problems.
em10, you are spreading panic and despair ! What secret courts are sending people to jail without representation ? In family cases, of necessity heard in private, without the public and press being present, a person who is persistently in breach of orders, in contempt of court, may be jailed for that. They are parents in the case and will have had representation available to them; all family practitioners have had some experience of such cases. The event is hardly secret; you might as well argue that the family courts themselves are secret. The jailed party is not prevented, nor are their friends, from telling the press and everyone else that they have been jailed.
.
You are employed to do X and you hear your politicial head of department telling all and sundry that what ever the land of the free does, it is definitely not X
and some people, clearly not bedk and sqad experience a double bind,
Some people say: gimme gimme I need a pay rise !
and others will say: I can do that ! gi' us that job !
a third group will say : Incredible ! Look at that ! politics is clearly the way forward for me !
a fourth will turn to the bottle and go home and kick the dog....
I have sympathy for people who can't stand it and behave self destructively.
. I have heard a lawyer lie to a judge - and when the judge found out [ through me ] -he just shrugged his shoulders and said: next case !
The shlop-nana had asked the Great Man why they hadnt used Y and he was lip-read saying "we can't do that we havent disclosed it" and Y was later found to have been shredded (no connection). I suppose the life-lesson is beware deaf people in court. lawyers will know the difference between procedural and material errors
You are employed to do X and you hear your politicial head of department telling all and sundry that what ever the land of the free does, it is definitely not X
and some people, clearly not bedk and sqad experience a double bind,
Some people say: gimme gimme I need a pay rise !
and others will say: I can do that ! gi' us that job !
a third group will say : Incredible ! Look at that ! politics is clearly the way forward for me !
a fourth will turn to the bottle and go home and kick the dog....
I have sympathy for people who can't stand it and behave self destructively.
. I have heard a lawyer lie to a judge - and when the judge found out [ through me ] -he just shrugged his shoulders and said: next case !
The shlop-nana had asked the Great Man why they hadnt used Y and he was lip-read saying "we can't do that we havent disclosed it" and Y was later found to have been shredded (no connection). I suppose the life-lesson is beware deaf people in court. lawyers will know the difference between procedural and material errors
"but why should the powers that be spy on all to catch the few. Don't the intelligence services have enough people, and technology to target those who are specifically involved in terror activities."
I think you will find that that is exactly what they ARE doing. The problem is that it is often, especially nowadays, impossible to obtain the nuggets you're looking for without having access to lots more, because as I said before in this modern age of communication everyone's communicating with everyone else largely via the same media. It's like having a massive silo of grain and a sieve: 99.9% you don't care about, but hopefully your sieve will find what you want.
The crux of Edward Snowden's concern seemed to be that it would be possible for someone working with this system to start "sieving" for his or her own purposes.
And the crux of the concern about GCHQ is apparently that they use the intelligence from Prism to obtain information on British citizens.
However, even if the latter is the case it would still be legal because it wouldn't have been the UK which did the intercepting.
I'd have more sympathy for Edward Snowden if he didn't protray himself as some sort of Assange-like angel of destiny. I hope in a way the US don't pursue him to the ends of the earth as it is likely to make them look silly.
Especially if at the same time a debate starts in the US about the issue in general, which the President seems to welcome.
And meanwhile Google, Yahoo, Facebook and co claim they keep our data "safe" . A big "lol" to that :-)
I think you will find that that is exactly what they ARE doing. The problem is that it is often, especially nowadays, impossible to obtain the nuggets you're looking for without having access to lots more, because as I said before in this modern age of communication everyone's communicating with everyone else largely via the same media. It's like having a massive silo of grain and a sieve: 99.9% you don't care about, but hopefully your sieve will find what you want.
The crux of Edward Snowden's concern seemed to be that it would be possible for someone working with this system to start "sieving" for his or her own purposes.
And the crux of the concern about GCHQ is apparently that they use the intelligence from Prism to obtain information on British citizens.
However, even if the latter is the case it would still be legal because it wouldn't have been the UK which did the intercepting.
I'd have more sympathy for Edward Snowden if he didn't protray himself as some sort of Assange-like angel of destiny. I hope in a way the US don't pursue him to the ends of the earth as it is likely to make them look silly.
Especially if at the same time a debate starts in the US about the issue in general, which the President seems to welcome.
And meanwhile Google, Yahoo, Facebook and co claim they keep our data "safe" . A big "lol" to that :-)
a number of the stories were in the mail, if i can find the one from a couple of weeks ago.
http://
http://
sure some will rubbish it as per usual, however the woman who was sent to prison says that happened without legal representation. Others can testify that secret courts are here, and they are here to stay
http://
http://
Em - Is this one of the ones you're looking for.
http://
http://
why not, because she and members of her family were worried about the father, or other cases where the state has taken control of the person's finances because they were supposedly deemed incapable of doing so themselves, but once better the state continues that control, not sure understand that at all
The woman imprisoned by a secret court yesterday described the shocking moment police descended on her father’s care home to ‘cart me off to jail’.
Wanda Maddocks was sentenced for trying to remove her father John from a home where his family thought he was in danger of dying.
But she was not present in court, nor was she represented by a lawyer, when the judgment was made – and her sentencing was not made public for six months.
Wanda Maddocks was sentenced for trying to remove her father John from a home where his family thought he was in danger of dying.
But she was not present in court, nor was she represented by a lawyer, when the judgment was made – and her sentencing was not made public for six months.
Latest Posts
Technology10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Is Technology Ruining The Game Of...
Sport26 mins ago
What Standard Of Football Does The...
Sport28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.