Comment by lesuorac

Comment by lesuorac 10 hours ago

> it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state.

There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping.

There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies.

FISA [1] isn't a private law either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...

Note: 2006 (Klien) predates 2013 (Snowden)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

Clubber 10 hours ago

>There's really nothing new from Snowden besides the names of a bunch of people to go kill cause they're spies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...

Reply View 3 replies

lesuorac 9 hours ago

You are dense. Imagine a government authorizes 10B for a bridge and then in 5 years a bridge shows up.
Now instead, imagine in 1978 [1] a government authorizes "United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil" and in 2008 [2] amends it to not be a big deal if they're foreign or not and then 5 years later it turns out they're doing just that.
These bills are not secret. Were not secret. Have never been secret. It's not my fault you didn't read them but it doesn't make Snowden novel.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

Reply View | 2 replies
- Clubber 8 hours ago
  
  >You are dense.
  Well, maybe you're one of those propagandists. If you can't attack the idea, attack the person, right?
  Hand waves, nothing new to see here, carry on.
  The bills aren't what were exposed, it was more the techniques and scope. Like PRISM and XKeyScore and circumventing laws by sharing intelligence on US citizens with allies who aren't restricted by US laws. Spying on allied governments, etc. You know, that stuff.
  You should really click on the link.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  dialup_sounds 7 hours ago
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
  Et cetera. These aren't new issues. The obsession with Snowden as a messianic figure is unhelpful in contextualizing the information.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

simoncion 8 hours ago

> There's long been surveillance programs and also numerous laws outlining the responsibilities of telecom provides to enable wire tapping.

Laws which the telecoms were knowingly and willfully breaking for years.

You do remember that Congress gave them retroactive immunity? [0][1] You do know that this was only granted because people COULD sue (and were suing) them because of the information made public by Snowden and others?

[0] <https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/retroactive-tele...>

[1] See Title II of the this bill <https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304>

Reply View 0 replies