Should President Obama pardon Edward Snowden?

SPC Keelan Southerland - I can accept that (the apology). Please understand I am not trying to talk down to anyone just because I work in cyber and I’ve been doing it for years. But if I were carrying on a conversation with a fighter pilot on the TTPs of air-to-air combat, I’m going to defer to that person’s experience and knowledge. This whole discussion is based on whether the NSA is illegally using surveillance on Americans when the law restricts them from spying on Americans. Spying and surveillance are essentially two related but different words. No one is getting targeted, their systems are not being penetrated, and their information is not touched without the proper procedures. This is no different than CCTV watching you go into a bank shortly before it is robbed and then recording you and two other guys running out with guns and bags of money. At the same time, there are many other pieces of evidence which can point to you as the guy robbing the bank (witnesses, fingerprints, using the money later, etc…).

Again I have to stress, “no leads have come from the Meta Data” was not an answer to a proactive view of the mission and it’s a very ambiguous answer by design. At the same time, as we continue telling the world about our TTPs, do you really think the enemy isn’t paying attention and possibly changing their own? To speak to the scenario in your own example, at one point it might have been conceivable to do exactly what you’re talking about (take a HD out of the system to bypass the OS logon) and successfully read the data. But this will not bypass data at rest encryption (if it is employed) which is what more people are doing today. At that point, the enemy has to wonder if their encryption is strong enough to prevent orgs like the NSA from capturing it. But what if someone like Snowden decided that the NSA should not be researching, building, and employing decryption tools because then they would have the ability to decrypt the emails of all Americans? So in order to “warn” Americans he goes on to release all the information on what they can or cannot encrypt. That is my problem with Snowden. He stole and released a lot of information which had little to do with his self-proclaimed issues with the surveillance program. And to make matters worse, he failed to use the proper channels and instead fled to a country which has been mounting a cyber-campaign against us for years.

As for the investigation process. The warrant process IS used at all times unless there is a condition where timing is critical and they have to resort to probable cause. This would be extremely rare, and there are a level of controls and procedures required to access the data. The instances of NSA personnel discovered accessing data illegally have been pursued and prosecuted.

Now, I get that some people have a problem with EO 12333, but most of that is derived from the lack of information about these programs (which is the catch 22 because the NSA has to keep it secret in order for it to work). To make matters worse, they are fed with a lot of false information too. What should be interesting to note, is that very few politicians who are read into the programs have a problem with them. This has been a bipartisan effort since the inception. When I listen to people like Sen Paul, I know he either doesn’t have a complete understanding of the program, or he is purposefully playing to a base of people to garner votes. In the end, Snowden released the method to the world, Congress reviewed it, and to satisfy the pressure coming from a significant amount but overall small base of people, they placed the control of the data into the private sector’s hands. Nothing has changed other than the process of having to take the court order to ISPs. Essentially they’ve created a middle man and delayed the process.

One last thing to point out on the secrecy of our capabilities. Even the unknown sometimes gives us more credit on our capabilities than we’re actually capable of. To cite a good example, read the book “Out of Captivity” about the 3 American Hostages in Columbia. The FARC at the time believed they had to go indoors to talk because they believed our satellites have the real time capability to listen to their conversations. Just goes to show that sometimes thinking we have the ability to do something is powerful enough to affect their operations. But sometimes it gets out of control. Especially when we have a significant number of Americans believing the NSA has a bunch of people recording and listening to our conversations and reading our mail. How big is the NSA in comparison to the over 310 million Americans (and even more US persons)? Hell, most of us have trouble keeping up with our own email.

TSgt Frank Shirley - He's on a new show where is plays the President of the US.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - What you said may or may not be true, but the point is....He breached security...no mater how you look at it...He broke protocol....he breached security....he did something he agreed to IN WRITING that he said he WOULD NOT DO...not matter what type of information he stole...whether top secrete, classified, secret or otherwise, HE BREACHED SECURITY and therefore he should accept and face the consequences.

Sgt Kelli Mays - Where in my responses have I stated Snowden did not compromise security, does not deserve to be tried as a traitor, or that I in any way support him? You might want to read my whole post(s).

TSgt Frank Shirley - Lol

That is the coolest nickname.

Concur.

TSgt Frank Shirley - Maryland, Second Generation Ft Meade.

I think the KGB method of taking care of those who think they are "safe" in another country would be fitting justice. Poison or some other means of assassination would never bother me. Too many bleeding hearts would be upset if he were hanged, which he should be.

TSgt Shirley, LOL! I'm glad you took the time to look it up. The term isn't used very much now days (OMG, I really am becoming my grandfather). I'm not sure which definition you read, there multiple ones that differ slightly, but I meant this one: to deceive or trick (someone) into believing or doing something. I think it's highly plausible that he was "duped" into taking the material he took because he had the access (remember just because you have access doesn't mean you have the understanding of the data/material). I've listened to what he has said and it's crystal clear to me that he only has a "surface level" understanding, at best, of the data/material he took. I strongly suspect someone "influenced" him into taking and releasing the data. I very strongly suspect he's trade highly classified material with the Russians in order to stay in Russian. The Russians aren't allowing him to stay there out of the "goodness of their hearts." They will suck him dry then use him for a "trade" or some other purpose when it's in their best interests. Time will tell.

No, no issue.

These program were implemented before President Obama (BHO). That said, it has always had a significant bipartisan support. Only the few who are playing to a specific base and/or do not understand cyber think otherwise.

Yes, making a big deal about one situation as a whistle blower, is one thing. But it seemed a vindictive choice to reveal other information. When folks clearly do not have the best interests of our nation in mind and seek refuge in Russia, the question we might want to be asking is who put them up to it? His actions seem like those of an as yet to be developed character in a Tom Clancy novel.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Having invoked the Constitution you would then acknowledge the founding principles of same including a limited government having limited enumerated powers, none of which included either directly or via amendment granting the government the power to observe the citizenry at large. Granted such points of view have been ignored by the federal government which have created the laughably ironic situation of the adjective "libertarian" becoming a negative epithet. Ironically the libertarian mindset that states "that which is not specifically forbidden is OK" is the justification used for much of the overreach by these same agencies in the name of national security.

To a large extent, modern police work has devolved into a scheme to separate we "little people" from our federal reserve notes. Coming from 2 generations of "law enforcement" have allowed me some insight into this devolution and the inclusion of constant surveillance have greatly enhanced their revenue generation. That's why all complete (unredacted) budgets include a line in the income column for law enforcement activities.

Back to the topmost subject, the NSA and other alphabet agencies spying on the citizens of this country, their activities are probably wrapped in the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. The same minuscule hole in the dam that's been used for all manner of activities. Swearing an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic does not include the gather of pre-crime evidence (metadata) against every conversation or interaction that the NSA or others can capture. Can a FISA court authorize the application of Law 7.62 against any American it chooses? We don't know because those agencies are hidden from view and we will never know until someone throws sunlight upon them. If not specifically authorized by those agencies the new normal is to call them traitors. Rampant secrecy is not an attribute that one would associate with a government created by, from and for the people. Find religious zealots with roots in the middle ages? Take along a lighter and a BLT sandwich.

The Constitution grants Congress the ability to pass laws (keeping in mind our rights, which they cannot restrict), and the President the ability to enforce those laws. The NSA has been created in the same manner as the DIA and CIA, to support our military capabilities and protect this county's ability to trade and provide commerce. It is the duty of our government to protect its citizens and provide for the common defense. Surveillance and intelligence are means to that end

In case you haven't noticed, we have a new dimension in warfare called cyber, which has very porous borders, easily traversed by anyone, and which presents a lot of significant threats. It is used to communicate, provide command and control, conduct espionage on our intellectual property and secrets, disrupt commerce, and even recruiting by our enemies. Within our own physical borders, we have federal/state/local gov organizations observing (or to put it another way employing surveillance) of our roadways and public spaces. ICE for example, do not only exist on our borders and at transportation hubs, watching people come in and out. Having similar capabilities in cyberspace is no different, and very much needed. Using surveillance to root out enemies of this nation is absolutely a means to the end of providing for a common defense and supporting our military capabilities. To say otherwise would mean our government does not have the power to use surveillance and for that matter spy on the enemy outside our borders too. That's ridiculous.

The Federal government (which includes people like me) does not spy on Americans without the proper authorization, nor are there examples of this which haven't been pursued and prosecuted. I work in the same field as Snowden and I'm very much aware of what will happen to myself or any of my peers if we access this kind of data and/or employ capabilities without authorization (we go to jail). Once again I will stress the Meta-Data referred to in this discussion is not used to determine "pre-crime" criteria on Americans. It is investigative by design meant to root out accomplices and supporting elements of actions either already executed or discovered prior to execution through alternate means. The biggest argument I have from "privacy advocates" is that the ability alone is too much for the government to have. Forget the fact they have the ability to launch nuclear weapons and destroy any country they choose. Surveillance data apparently is something we abuse right? There's a lot of capabilities out there which can be employed by the government. They've trained people to actually break into your system right now, without your knowledge and take all your critical information. What prevents them from doing this?

You go on to criticize the fact this country has to keep secrets from not only the enemy, but also the American people. This is why we go through elections... We vote for the people to appoint those in leadership positions in the federal government, who undergo various levels of security background checks, and are entrusted to protect those secrets. They take oaths to protect that information. You were a Missile Systems Analyst Specialist at one time, and were entrusted to protect and not divulge the classified information pertaining to the systems you worked with, right (range, capability, vulnerabilities, etc)? Seems to me like you're telling me you shouldn't have to keep those secrets. After all, the American people all have a right to know right?

You need to put down 1984 and actually understand the stupidity of Snowden. He is not a hero, he's a traitor. And before you go into another rant about how you think all this is illegal or unconstitutional, tell me this, what is your solution to mitigate the threats I listed above? I've heard "privacy advocates" bitch quite a bit lately, and I'm tired of it. Tell me how they recommend we address the threats to this nation both in cyberspace and the physical world coupled with cyberspace?

SrA (Join to see) - "If you have nothing to hide, why should you mind this body cavity search?"

This is your problem. That would be an example of an invasion of privacy as defined specifically in the Constitution. It is not the same thing as observing you going to an airport through CCTV, up to the ticket desk, and then to the security checkpoints. No one is suggesting we allow the government to do such a thing.

The placement of that line is the question. Airports have been declared Federal territory where in-depth searches of one's person and effects which are violations of the 4th amendment are permissible to perpetrate the "feeling of security". No amendments were made to the Constitution or the fourth amendment. The government never asked for this authority, they seized it. When challenged, they let the robed federal employees decide. The public are left with the only option of choosing which of the "four box" solutions will work. The term allow would indicate a direct question and choice.