Reading your email..
Discussion
collateral said:
I'm probably wrong, but I assumed it was because without leaking first there would be no reason for him to claim asylum somewhere
To seek asylum you need to demonstrate that you are running away from some form of persecution. So it's tricky to seek asylum on the grounds of something you haven't yet done or that someone hasn't yet tried to do to you.200bhp said:
Surely though, running away from criminal activity and claiming asylum isnt as legitimate as running from war, poverty, famine etc. ?
If it was that easy murderers would simply jump on a plane and fly to Hong Kong to escape from the police.
You're comparing murder with blowing the lid on more shyte that the US are gettting up to behind the backs of supposed friends?If it was that easy murderers would simply jump on a plane and fly to Hong Kong to escape from the police.
International law as to refugees is not easily summarised. It is based partly on Conventions and partly on general human rights principles. Ordinarily a person must reach the border of or enter a country in order to claim refugee protection from that country. A person can make a claim for protection within a country if, for example, circumstances in the home country change.
Seeking to evade a criminal prosecution is not a basis for protection, unless the prosecution is clearly political, the alleged offence is not recognised by civilised nations, or the trial process will be unfair.
Seeking to evade a criminal prosecution is not a basis for protection, unless the prosecution is clearly political, the alleged offence is not recognised by civilised nations, or the trial process will be unfair.
To give examples, each of a deposed politician fleeing a show trial conducted by the new rulers of his country, a gay man facing prosecution for being gay, and a person facing a trial based on evidence obtained by torture could properly claim asylum.
I sympathise with Mr Snowden, but am not sure that the proposed prosecution for breach of US secrecy laws can be described as political. He may have a defence based on public interest. [EDIT: but perhaps not - this seems to have been ruled out in the Manning case].
I sympathise with Mr Snowden, but am not sure that the proposed prosecution for breach of US secrecy laws can be described as political. He may have a defence based on public interest. [EDIT: but perhaps not - this seems to have been ruled out in the Manning case].
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th July 15:51
Breadvan72 said:
To give examples, each of a deposed politician fleeing a show trial conducted by the new rulers of his country, a gay man facing prosecution for being gay, and a person facing a trial based on evidence obtained by torture could properly claim asylum.
I sympathise with Mr Snowden, but am not sure that the proposed prosecution for breach of US secrecy laws can be described as political. He may have a defence based on public interest.
when the us secretary of state, among others, has openly called him a "traitor" who "betrayed his country" it's tough to imagine him getting a fair trial imo... i also found his language a little odd "expel Mr. Snowden back to the US to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged"; maybe i'm reading too much into it but if i was on the other end of such a statement i'd much rather it said 'trial' instead of 'justice'. pass me the black cap, i'll be needing that.I sympathise with Mr Snowden, but am not sure that the proposed prosecution for breach of US secrecy laws can be described as political. He may have a defence based on public interest.
i assume exposing illegal activity (making the further assumption that such spying without warrant is illegal) is not a defence to breaching an oath to protect national security? ergo he's screwed even if he did get a fair trial...
In the civil law of the US, as in the UK, public interest can be a defence to a claim for an injunction to restrict publication of Government information (see the Pentagon Papers case in the US, and Lion Labs v Evans, and Skycatcher in the UK). In the criminal law, however, the public interests defence has not been adopted in the UK. I am not sure of the position in the US.
It appears that public interest will not afford a defence, at least not without a ruling from a Federal Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-allow-brad...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-allow-brad...
fbrs said:
You can't take a pi55 in the US without an accountant and a lawyer; I wonder if he got legal advice prior to the leak? Brave guy if he did and knew the mess he was going to get himself in. I do wonder why he didn't find a channel to leak it anonymously.
I think he was under no illusions as to what was going to happen. He did reckon that it was more likely to be 'disappeared' though; he knew what he was getting into and has said that he was accepting of the fact that he may remain a fugitive for the rest of his life. How that actually plays out is a different matter. Psychologically it will be very hard for him to cope I think after a year or so of this.The idea that the US would make a whistleblower "disappear" in the glare of international media scrutiny seems far fetched. Rendition was done in secret, and its victims were not at the time high profile in the media. This would have been very different. The same points apply to Assange.
I haven't read the thread in it's entirety, however I had the following thought.
The sum total of email alone, just in the US must be in the tens of millions per day (if not significantly more).
That's not to mention web traffic such as Facebook and Twitter (probably the primary areas of interest for "them").
So, I'm guessing there must be some kind of technology which is skimming posts / emails etc. searching for key words, or even key phrases?
If this is really happening (devil's advocate!), it must be quite a task - as surely this cannot all be happening in one single place - and the software must be clever enough to work out that an email has already been scanned (unless a tag is applied somehow - but that would be visible to the end user).
If all this data is actually being captured and scanned - it still seems inconceivable (to me anyway) that it's being directed and stored in a single location.
This all suggests massive amounts of duplication.
Which does make me wonder if the scanning is really well targeted?
I have worked in small scale network environments - and attempts at traffic capture (even specific protocols) required a fair amount of resource.
I'm happy to accept the whoosh! parrot (and other ridicule) at this stage if my post is deemed to be stupid.
There was much hesitation before posting this - as I realise I'm in danger of making myself look stupid - there are so many experts here - no doubt well versed in this sort of thing.
The sum total of email alone, just in the US must be in the tens of millions per day (if not significantly more).
That's not to mention web traffic such as Facebook and Twitter (probably the primary areas of interest for "them").
So, I'm guessing there must be some kind of technology which is skimming posts / emails etc. searching for key words, or even key phrases?
If this is really happening (devil's advocate!), it must be quite a task - as surely this cannot all be happening in one single place - and the software must be clever enough to work out that an email has already been scanned (unless a tag is applied somehow - but that would be visible to the end user).
If all this data is actually being captured and scanned - it still seems inconceivable (to me anyway) that it's being directed and stored in a single location.
This all suggests massive amounts of duplication.
Which does make me wonder if the scanning is really well targeted?
I have worked in small scale network environments - and attempts at traffic capture (even specific protocols) required a fair amount of resource.
I'm happy to accept the whoosh! parrot (and other ridicule) at this stage if my post is deemed to be stupid.
There was much hesitation before posting this - as I realise I'm in danger of making myself look stupid - there are so many experts here - no doubt well versed in this sort of thing.
TonyRPH said:
I haven't read the thread in it's entirety, however I had the following thought.
The sum total of email alone, just in the US must be in the tens of millions per day (if not significantly more).
That's not to mention web traffic such as Facebook and Twitter (probably the primary areas of interest for "them").
So, I'm guessing there must be some kind of technology which is skimming posts / emails etc. searching for key words, or even key phrases?
If this is really happening (devil's advocate!), it must be quite a task - as surely this cannot all be happening in one single place - and the software must be clever enough to work out that an email has already been scanned (unless a tag is applied somehow - but that would be visible to the end user).
If all this data is actually being captured and scanned - it still seems inconceivable (to me anyway) that it's being directed and stored in a single location.
This all suggests massive amounts of duplication.
Which does make me wonder if the scanning is really well targeted?
I have worked in small scale network environments - and attempts at traffic capture (even specific protocols) required a fair amount of resource.
I'm happy to accept the whoosh! parrot (and other ridicule) at this stage if my post is deemed to be stupid.
There was much hesitation before posting this - as I realise I'm in danger of making myself look stupid - there are so many experts here - no doubt well versed in this sort of thing.
Have a look at how they caught Pablo Escobar all those years ago and then extrapolate the technology up to now. That may give a pointer towards current abilities.The sum total of email alone, just in the US must be in the tens of millions per day (if not significantly more).
That's not to mention web traffic such as Facebook and Twitter (probably the primary areas of interest for "them").
So, I'm guessing there must be some kind of technology which is skimming posts / emails etc. searching for key words, or even key phrases?
If this is really happening (devil's advocate!), it must be quite a task - as surely this cannot all be happening in one single place - and the software must be clever enough to work out that an email has already been scanned (unless a tag is applied somehow - but that would be visible to the end user).
If all this data is actually being captured and scanned - it still seems inconceivable (to me anyway) that it's being directed and stored in a single location.
This all suggests massive amounts of duplication.
Which does make me wonder if the scanning is really well targeted?
I have worked in small scale network environments - and attempts at traffic capture (even specific protocols) required a fair amount of resource.
I'm happy to accept the whoosh! parrot (and other ridicule) at this stage if my post is deemed to be stupid.
There was much hesitation before posting this - as I realise I'm in danger of making myself look stupid - there are so many experts here - no doubt well versed in this sort of thing.
TonyRPH said:
There was much hesitation before posting this - as I realise I'm in danger of making myself look stupid - there are so many experts here - no doubt well versed in this sort of thing.
No doubt. A surprising number of your questions are answered in here.I do wonder if there will be fallout for the Guardian with some of what they've released, though they appear to have left key bits from that article out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff