"I have nothing to hide government can see anything"

>*because they're illegal
your point >> /dev/null

Your entirely beside the point.
If he wants to be a martyr and an enemy of the state that's his choice.

It doesn't excuse what he did.

murica, fuck yeah!

srsly mate, do you have a brain?

Say a cop goes around extorting people and generally doing things that are plainly illegal, are you gonna bash the guy who reports this asshole for "being a pathetic snitch" and then defend the corrupt cop too?

>enemy of the state
Wew

Snowden is an SJW who had multiple attempts to voice his concerns with the NSA, official channels by which he could have received the status of "whistleblower" and avoid retaliation, etc, but his Savior Complex wouldn't allow it. He has lied on multiple occasions about his past, and the timeframe of events, as he says they happened at the NSA, could not have happened.

siktir lan es macht klick klick bam

Why does this cretin still post here? Did you get banned from all other tech discussion sites due to being retarded?

>tripfag
>retard opinion
wow im so suprised

he was a contractor for Booz Allen, not an NSA employee. He had no channel nor protection available to him.

>plainly illegal
Nothing the NSA was doing was illegal.

>enemy of the state
There was literally no reason for him to run to Russia other than that he wanted to play secret agent.

>Le Snowden is my hero :^)
Reddit pls go

It blows my mind that these fags are defending someone that defected to the fucking soviet empire.

>Nothing the NSA was doing was illegal.
I'd advise you to read the 4th amendment.

I've included it here for your review.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

NSA never came into my house and rifled through my shit.

Nope, just every packet you've sent or received, every cell tower you've ever come in range of, and every person you've ever talked to.

That diddly-doo is getting robberood in his bumpanee flippa bloop.

All disclosures from contractors fall under the IC WPA (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998). Snowden chose not to be a whistleblower.

>le run to russia meme
he fled to hong kong then was attempting to reach ecuador when his passport was revoked and he got stranded in a russian airport.

Did you have a point?
Thats your fault for not securing your communication, you have no right to expect privacy in those scenarios.

Lucky for us, your own personal interpretation of constitutional amendments does not fucking matter.

Taking your tripcode off doesn't work you moron. Not all of us are Amerifats, who are politically retarded.

>he's just a good guy trying to help us :^)

That guy makes way better points than I do.
I'm not invested enough in my opinion do do actual research to defend it.

>Thats your fault for not securing your communication, you have no right to expect privacy in those scenarios.
When steps are taken to encrypt communications, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, yes.

why do i keep seeing this picture

Luckily for him, he shares an interpretation with the Supreme Court, whose opinion does matter

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

where is snowden now, chucklefuck?

Nope.
If I shout that nobody should read my postcard and then pass it off to someone else there is no viable way of enforcing your privacy without trampling on other peoples rights.

If you encrypt something and send it off and someone breaks that encryption they aren't committing any crime, your encryption just sucked.

He only leaked relevant documents mang
He doesnt just leak important government things all willy nilly

>Thyllo vs. United States (2001)
>The Court ruled that warrantless use of electronic surveillance technology "that is not in general public use" is unconstitutional when it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy

As the other post said, using a method of encryption which is generally thought to be secure constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. So you can see that different rules apply when we talk about the government's behaviour when compared to a private individual's behaviour

I genuinely have nothing to hide. I use win10 and google.

anglo-saxons

>reasonable expectation of privacy
I.E. you are a government contracted employee obligated to not disclose the information.

I like snowden, but that whole theory is retarded, he could've just flown to argentina, brazil, and even venezuela for a connection flight to ecuador without getting caught and extradited. There was no need to fly over to hong kong and then russia.

completely irrelevant to the argument

I agree, its like you just post random shit and think it supports your opinion.

still webm dude was right, HOLY SHIT

Cool, breh. Let me know when a court from 1967 makes a ruling on the passive collection of metadata from mobile phones.

See

>a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling which supports my position is random shit
you got me

You only think it does.
I struggle to even follow your reasoning for that belief.

fuck the government, nuke the pentagon, snowden for president

?

you said
>If you encrypt something and send it off and someone breaks that encryption they aren't committing any crime, your encryption just sucked.

the context was an argument over whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications.

You seemed to be suggesting that encrypting data isn't a reasonable assurance of privacy when the method of encryption had vulnerabilities. The ruling makes clear that if the technology required to undermine the encryption isn't in "general public use" (how I would use to describe the methods used by the NSA), that you're still reasonable in your expectation to privacy.

If you read the ruling you'll see that it interprets the 4th amendment as protecting the privacy of a person, and not just his property. The test later established - and still in use - asks two things

>a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"
>society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

collection of cellphone metadata doesn't meet these requirements, but other NSA activities do. For example, the collection of emails from Gmail customers who opted to have their emails encrypted

Its true.
I worked a pleb job for a while and this subject came up. They were going on about how he needs to by hung and made an example of.
Americans really are this stupid.

>It blows my mind that these fags are defending someone that defected to the fucking soviet empire.

Shitty trip fag troll. Just filter and move on.

I am super Cred Forums and I think snowden did the right thing