Snowden, liberty, freedom, survalience and propaganda

Pages: 12345
chrisname wrote:
My opinion on Snowden is that he broke the law ...

Side question: which laws were violated / which laws describe the deed as a punishable act?

Is this essentially similar to a programmer first working for a company with a signed NDA, but then moving to a competitor and transferring knowledge?
Maybe he signed a contract...
I'm pretty sure releasing classified government documents is a crime, and a more serious one than selling trade secrets. I don't agree that he has done anything morally wrong, but if the law says it's a crime then it's a crime, even if I personally don't think it should be. So again, I don't want anything bad (worse) to happen to him - quite the opposite, I think what he's doing is good and important - but that doesn't make what he did legal.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Side question: which laws were violated / which laws describe the deed as a punishable act?


Snowden is innocent until proven guilty. But with that said there are laws against disclosing classified information that he intentionally broke. He might have had good reasons to break the law but that is a different story.

Ultimately it comes down to what a Jury believes. Since he is a civilian he will be tried in civilian court most likely not military court, though Obama has ruthlessly used the “military secret” claim to suppress a lot of civil court proceedings involving terrorism policies, so that might happen here to.

So ultimately it is up to a jury to decide whether or not Snowden is guilty. Did he break the law? Yes. Will he be punished? That is hard to tell.

Is this essentially similar to a programmer first working for a company with a signed NDA, but then moving to a competitor and transferring knowledge?


In order to get security clearance you must sign forms and contracts. I am sure there is a a huge no disclosure contract that he signed and broke.
In the UK he would be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Although it is refereed to as "signing the Official Secrets Act" the signing has nothing to do with being a contract. If he agrees to it or not he is still bound by it. So even if he saw documents that he should not have seen he would still not be a liberty to say anything about them if they are secret.

I'm sure that the US has similar laws.
no fredbill I was saying that government should be under constant srutiny from the people
This thread keeps making me think of the Heinz dilemma (although it doesn't apply perfectly in this case). Its interesting to observe what some people find wrong and some don't.
Let's imagine that a group of computer smart-o's decide to build a network spy machine and use it to keep track of government activity.

How do you think the government would respond if they found out?
Well they don't hang people so I guess life in prison.
Well they don't hang people so I guess life in prison.

I'd check your sources before making that statement.
I quote:
The United States federal government (in comparison to the separate states) applies the death penalty for certain crimes: treason, espionage, ...
-Capital Punishment by the United States Government, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government

In other words, you'd be lucky to get life in prison for some of the stuff that Snowden did / is doing. Snowden is in deep trouble if he's caught.

Well they don't hang people

I know Washington has choice of injection or hanging for the death penalty. Hanging is still a thing.
Last edited on
Using Email Encryption or Tor Is Grounds for Surveillance
,therefore americans creating any privacy for themselves for any reason will find themselves automatically denied that right by law.

Or, privacy is not a liberty americans enjoy.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/depth-review-new-nsa-documents-expose-how-americans-can-be-spied-without-warrant

Wait they don't hang people anymore, do they seriously?
@Fredbill30: I hate to seem like a jerk for quoting and linking you, but I just wanted to clear things up and point you in the right direction. :)

Capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in the U.S. state of Washington. A total of 110 executions have been carried out in the state and its predecessor territories since 1849. All but three were by hanging.
(I added bold for emphasis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Washington_state

Check out:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution
@ENIGMAx
There is a very big difference between Washington state and Washington D.C.
Also, the last hanging in the US was in Iowa in 19631


1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging#United_States
whats the difference between hanging and electrofrying and injecting poison and firing squad?

I think its sick that people are allowed to watch, very sick indeed, twisted and perverse even.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
What about when a killer gets the death sentence? Shouldn't the family members be able to see the execution of the guy that killed their loved one(s)? It might be gruesome but I am sure to many it gives them a tiny bit of closure. You can call me sick or whatever you want but if someone killed one of my family members and they got the death penalty I would definitely be there to watch it. But on the reverse side I believe the death penalty should be reserved only for the most brutal of crimes.
Last edited on
its kind of odd that the state gets to choose who lives or dies, if they do have to put someone down it should not be an act of revenge.

when a dog bites someone it often gets put down, its not an act of revenge.

as for people having to watch death as an act of closure I believe it probably fucks them up in new ways as well as sends totally the wrong message.

one crime does not justify another.
Pages: 12345