So user, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

It's not the government who deliberately and unconstitutionally spied on its citizens that is at fault, it's the person who let the world know. Are any of you capable of critical thinking?

>a government agency did illegal things, therefore it is for others okay to do illegal things
No.

I would agree that he did the right thing, morally speaking. That doesn't change the fact that what he did went against his contract and the law.

He can hide with uncle Vlad, therefore the law is not the ultimate ruler over him.

This quote applies to governments and corporations as well, and I've never seen an entity more paranoid and private than the US government.
All those secrets give me a good reason to fear and hide.

When the government is angry you did that, do you think your punishment will be in proportion to your crimes, or far harsher?

>This quote applies to governments and corporations as well, and I've never seen an entity more paranoid and private than the US government.
I like this food for thought user. Thank you

>a government agency did illegal things, therefore it is for others okay to do illegal things
This is a strawman, but your answer to it is correct.
>That doesn't change the fact that what he did went against his contract and the law.
Who really cares? No one was physically hurt because of his actions and the F.B.I. built its own NSA in the meantime. Business as usual, sadly.

>He can hide with uncle Vlad, therefore the law is not the ultimate ruler over him.
Here we go... It's like Rocky IV all over again. Not that it's nigh impossible to prove this, but even if you for a moment think about it - how is a man supposedly so well protected living in asylum and in fear for his life since 2013?

In an*

Ideally, the seperation of powers SHOULD ensure that he was put on a fair trial and punished appropriately.
That is not the case in real life, I understand; hence why I said he should be tried by an _impartial_ judge and jury. Those aren't necessarily US ones.
But if people can get away scot-free with capital offenses like treason, what's the point of having laws against them?

>No one was physically hurt
Not directly, but the type of information he leaked was volatile regardless. It might have led to the discovery of undercover agents, and it might have led to a decrease in agency effectiveness by binding resources that could have been spent finding and stopping criminals.
Plus, physical harm is not a criterion for crimes being classified as such, or as a determining factor for punishment. Robbing someone at gunpoint, stealing cars or evading taxes are all crimes which cause no direct physical harm to anyone. They are all less severe than leaking government information, and are (rightfully) punishable.

>and it might have led to a decrease in agency effectiveness by binding resources that could have been spent finding and stopping criminals.
Don't you think everyone would've heard it by now how effective and worth it all was, instead of everyone even outside of the US being aware of multiple, repeated terrorist attacks?

The thing about intelligence agencies is that if they're successful, you don't hear anything about them. For all you know, they might be preventing 20 domestic terrorist attacks for each one they couldn't stop, and they might have concentrated on the ones with a higher damage potential than some incel shooting up his school.

drumpf

That scenario doesn't hold much water, especially given how willing the citizens of the US are willing to trade anything for even and often a false sense of security.

Have you ever worked at an IA or for the government?

killary

Attached: 1484249362505.png (810x1318, 1.25M)

Power on your computer and drop it in warm soapy water. /Eirepol/ will know your business if you continue down this road.

>he broke contractual obligations and laws
Debateable. In his defense he was merely upholding his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This duty supersedes all other contractual obligations and any law he broke is superseded by the law of the land.

So you are saying a non disclosure agreement is more important than an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn or domestic?
aaronswartzday.org/snowden-oath/

Probably butchering the quote but :

"Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say" -Edward Snowden

I like to shit in a glass box too. Will OP give me a blumpkin?

This is how dictatorships are born.

MUH LAWS MADE BY OLD MEN IN 1940 HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. REEEEEEEEEEEEEE QUESTION NOTHING

Was proven that the agencies and laws in accordance with the Patriot Act haven't done shit to save shit.

Google it you normie tard.

>Upholding the constitution is considered as illegal things now.
Yep, and it's fine if the alphabet agency break it because it's all for the "greater good".

>nothing to fear
Yeah, except for the emergence of a new form of tyranny so far reaching and technologically effective that it can never be thrown off. No biggie.

If I've got nothing to hide, why do you need to watch?

Attached: snowdenThink.jpg (400x550, 127K)

i too wouldn't mind seeing him martyr'd

>t. NSA

I am a boring person and I don't really have anything to hide. But I'm edgy and I don't like other people looking at my stuff. And I'm not the only one - IT'S SIMPLE!

>The suppression of fundamental human dignity by law.
>Even a law based on totalitarianism, should be followed.
>I am a damn patriot. He is a traitor.

Attached: 096ceab9df9ff2715dcbebfff94208657b0e5f1d.jpg (329x220, 49K)

Privacy isn't about hiding your data as much as it is about protecting your data. This vastly connected and fast world has enabled third-parties to gather your data and use it to manipulate and control you in ways beyond your knowing for their own sake.

can I have your credit card info then? you have nothing to fear.

I agree with you morally but he obviously broke laws, it's like the definition of treason

Damn there are lots of bootlicker boomers around here.

>Everyone I don't like is a boomer
>A childs guide to being on Jow Forums

Shut up, you fucking autist, he is a hero

I automatically assumed that this was how everyone saw it until I saw all these mouthbreathers saying Snowden is the criminal who needs to be punished. It doesn't make any sense. He's doing the whole globe a favor and risking his own life for greater good. No one in this board would dare to do anything like that. He had to leave his whole life behind just so he could warn the whole world about massive immoral activities. It's clear as day that he didn't do it for any personal gain.

> my government can do no wrong, no matter the circumstances
> it is not to be criticized in any way, never
> people who expose corruption in it should be silenced
That is exactly what you are saying, no reason to spin it otherwise.
I love assholes like you talking about "the law" while spitting on the constitution constantly.

A treason to what, a government?
Opposed to the citizens?
>triggered

Fucking this, I don't understand people who think Snowden should be crucified

>people who think Snowden should be crucified
Well, multiple generations of inbreeding will do that to their brains.

>releases top secret information to our enemies
>somehow should be regarded a "hero"
>shouldn't be crucified
tell me more

Attached: 1528579205887.png (595x760, 495K)

>NSA keeps a list of all sysadmins so they can target them when they need to get into corporate servers
>they take your keys and do some shady shit with it
>corporate finds the logs and files criminal charges against you
>NSA wont help you because it will reveal methods
>go to pound me in the ass prison for a crime you didn't commit
b-but i dindunuffin

Attached: 1503345905726.jpg (758x1378, 89K)

>So you are saying [statement that literally contradicts what I said]
Stop that.
He did the right thing by exposing the wrongdoings of government agencies. I am NOT saying he was wrong in doing that, or that he should not have done it.
The OP presented him as someone who is / was facing wrongful accusations of treason and criminal activity WHICH HE FUCKING ISN'T. Those accusations are justified, and he needs to be tried.
Hate to be that guy, but: If someone had successfully assassinated Hitler, it would have been a very similar situation. He would have done what was best for the people, he would have done the right thing morally speaking, but he would have broken his oath and several laws doing it, and therefore would have to be tried afterwards.

See above. You don't HAVE to follow the law, and sometimes in order to serve the spirit of the law means breaking its word. Still, you need to face the consequences of this, and be tried by a jury that determines whether breaking the word of the law was justified (i.e. you protected the spirit of the law by reasonable means), and whether you need to be punished regardless.

So why don't "you the people" abolish those evul meanie agencies then? See how long your country lasts when the Chinese and Russians can get their hands on all the information they want and Islamists can freely carry out their activities.

It's not fine if anyone breaks the law. Snowden should be tried, and those within the agencies that broke laws should be tried as well.

>> my government can do no wrong, no matter the circumstances
I never once claimed that my government (which isn't even the one that has beef with Snowden) can do no wrong. I agree that the agencies did wrong and those responsible should be tried.
>> it is not to be criticized in any way, never
Criticism towards the government is necessary in a democracy, and I never claimed otherwise or implied that criticism per se was wrong, illegal or stupid.
>> people who expose corruption in it should be silenced
I literally said Snowden was right to expose violations against constitutional law. He should NOT be silenced, he should face the consequences of his breaking the law by being put on a fair trial facing justified charges.

I never said he should be crucified, and if you actually read my posts you will notice that I didn't once make any reference to any supposed punishment he should receive -- that is for impartial judges to decide.

It's astounding how people see the world in black and white. Either Snowden is a commie traitor that deserves to be quartered, or he's a heavenly saint that dindu nuffin and we should all suck his dick. Da gubbermint is either allowed to exert total control over everyone and can not be criticised, or is composed of a bunch of incompetent mouthbreathers who you think will nevertheless somehow overthrow humanity if we don't adopt [edgy teenager ideology].
You guys need to grow the fuck up. Agencies have their use, they DO do good. There are some bad apples there, and those bad apples should be exposed and tried. Those who break laws to expose those bad apples are doing the right thing, but should be tried (and, if they broke laws or used unjustified means to do it, punished) as well. The need for punishment and the severity of it need to be determined by impartial judges in fair, open trials.

>Has good paying job. Living in paradise. Has hot girlfriend
>Throw it all away and risk death to do the right thing
>Stuck in shit-hole Russia. Probably forever.
>Almost half of Americans support his prosecution despite showing documented proof of wrong doing by a government over-reaching.
>Most of these people are Republicans. You know, the group who are AGAINST an over-reaching government.

I will never know how America has lasted over 200 years.

What 'top secret information´ to what enemies?

Russia's not so bad anymore now user. Plus his hot girlfriend moved there with him.

just look at their retarded internal politics. democrats were OK with assange and wikileaks, until he disclosed all the crimes the obama admin comitted, and then released the clinton emails...
now it's practically the devil himself, a russian agent, etc., etc. meanwhile, none of them calls obama, they guy who destroyed at least 2 more countries, a war criminal.
americans are either retarded or fucked up people, their cognitive dissonance, political apathy and passivity is incredible

>>Most of these people are Republicans. You know, the group who are supposed to be AGAINST an over-reaching government.
FTFY
they don't give a shit when their government grows for "national security" reasons, though. much less when their military attacks and destroys other countries..

So when you go to the public restroom you shit with the stall door open?

>not shitting in the urinals

> those evil taxpayers

You do know your country was founded by criminals?

>You guys need to grow the fuck up. Agencies have their use, they DO do good. There are some bad apples there

T. glow in the dark nigger

can you prove this?

People like you only focus on putting Snowden to trial (a trial which in no way could be fair and safe for him) while trying to divert everyone's eyes from an army of people that was, and still is, doing wrong and aren't on trial. This wasn't a case of just knowing something that can risk US government and spreading that info because you're evil and sadistic. There were more than one person doing something wrong in this scenario. If you put one on trial you put them all on trial, naturally punishing the ones committing the actual evil more than the snitch. Since this is never going to happen it's not reasonable to demand the snitch to ruin his life further.

bump
also check

and

Because I have nothing to hide you CIAniggers have nothing to look for, SO GET OUT OF MY HARDWARE BACK DOOR REEEEEE

>Hate to be that guy, but: If someone had successfully assassinated Hitler, it would have been a very similar situation. He would have done what was best for the people, he would have done the right thing morally speaking

Jow Forums would like a word with you

Attached: p.png (657x628, 22K)

theintercept.com/2014/03/20/inside-nsa-secret-efforts-hunt-hack-system-administrators/

Attached: 1512939282342.png (1440x720, 269K)

Everyone has something to hide. If you believe otherwise, get off Jow Forums

Attached: rLTz65e.jpg (1280x720, 69K)

he's a traitor to the state
but a hero to the nation

nation and state are two different things - and you should always side with the nation, bootlickers.

If hitler had been assassinated, the third reich would have survived, dude. Nazism wouldn't have received so much shame and it wouldn't have been burned out of germany by the allies. Ideally before 1941 when hitler suicided his way into russia.

>if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

Then don't have curtains or blinds on your windows. Don't have locks on your doors. Don't have locks on your vehicles. Let you neighbor collect and open your mail..

hypocrite

bait/10

Freedom and privacy are basic human rights, I shouldn't have to justify myself for wanting to keep my basic rights.

reminder to check the snowden archives:
github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive

theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files

wikileaks.org/nsa-brazil/
wikileaks.org/nsa-france/
wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/
wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/
wikileaks.org/nsa-italy/
wikileaks.org/nsa-eu/
wikileaks.org/nsa-un/

Just because something's not illegal now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Everyone has something to hide.

I think staving off the embarrassment of showing your micro penis to the world and preventing people from stealing your shit are a little bit different than hiding illicit activities under the guise of muh rights.

>it's like the definition of treason
Treason is defined by the Constitution as either waging war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

The last time the United States formally declared war was in 1942. All countries it has declared war against, it has since made peace with. Since we are not formally at war with any nation, it would be debatable how Snowden could have helped any of our "enemies" when no "enemies" exist in a legal sense. Moreover, Snowden's leaks were intended to benefit the people of the United States, and not specifically any supposed enemies, so treason would be a hard argument to make.

The law he broke would be disclosing confidential information, not treason.