In time when world fighting with global terrorism USA uses new technology to prevent future terrorist attacks, but some time ago all media in the World informed us that under the guise of fighting with terrorism America uses new technology to spy on its citizens as well as leaders
of other countries also UK use new technology to spy on the leaders of other countries in time the negotiations on a new EU budget . I found movie where NSA deputy director Richard Ledgett answers Anderson’s questions about the balance between security and protecting privacy.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_ledgett_the_nsa_responds_to_edward_snowden_s_ted_talk#t-854117
And here is interview with Edward Snowden about surveillance and Internet freedom
http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_snowden_here_s_how_we_take_back_the_internet
Question:
1. What is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
2.What do you think about that goverment spy their citizents?
3.Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
4.What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
Very thanks for that interesting subject. Maybe presented videos are a bit too long for me :-;.
ReplyDeleteYour first question is from these, about which I could discuss very long, because there are many pros and cons for the Snowden’s activity. From the one hand – most of us did not choose our nationality or constitution which we want to be faithful for. In this case when I see that something is wrong I should not be forced to be silent. But from the other hand living in society sometimes requires hiding personal opinion. Ed is over thirty years old man. He could have voted a few times, he could be elected and he could have changed his country in a democratic way. Personally I more disagree than agree with what Edward Snowden did. If I were on his place and were not in favour for the NSA activities I would leave my current job and I would not discovered the secret s from my work to others.
Spying is the only one form of controlling society and sometimes it is done for increasing security. I think that government should be allowed for spying its citizens (especially in the public area) but in a well-known and described range.
Richard Ledged did not convince me because he represents one side of disputation.
I agree with you that most of us did not choose our nationality or constitution but also I think that now a days most of us do not appreciate that we live in a democratic country they have not lived in the communist state so they don't appreciate that they can tell what they want they can do what they wont and if they wont they can go to election and thanks to that they can have influence on our government.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Snowden I have mixed feelings I think it's good that he said about the fact that people are being spied upon by the government but on the other hand I think that he said too much and because of that he exposed soldiers and other people who are abroad at a big danger.
I agree with you that Spying is the only one form of controlling society and sometimes it is done for increasing security. but what will happen if government will use spying to blackmail people or to stay at authority look what Nixon did in Watergate affair:)
I do not have an opinion about Edward Snowden because I am not a U.S. citizen and I have too little knowledge about the context of the situation. But when it comes to moral pattern presents by the American, is much better for the Poles, take debate about the attitude Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski.
ReplyDeleteSpying on its own citizens is an act harmful to for the same government also!
This line is the border of the country! You can ensure the safety of citizens through defending the borders, within the boundaries of the country the citizens can defend by themselves (after all, Americans have guns in their homes).
Richard Ledgett is convincing, of course, how would I dare to think differently? Now after all this, my speech will be by the relevant departments on the Internet tracked.:)
1. It is not easy to answer that question without knowing what exactly he did? What else did he pass on to the journalists? However, the fact that the public opinion and politicians are having a debate about these issues is a good thing. I'm not sure if that was the best way to bring attention to these issues, but it probably had to happen sooner or later.
ReplyDelete2. There should always be oversight by democratically elected institutions over those kinds of programs. These overseeing institutions should be competent and well informed about the scale and reach of the activities.
3. The line should be gathering information about citizens without probable cause and forcing us to use flawed security solutions.
4. It seems the security agencies are only doing their job, although part of the problem is that in this case they may have defined it too broadly compared to what they achieve in return. I doubt the situation can be resolved by good PR at this point.
1. It's a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, the secrets he revealed are "beneficial" to humanity as whole, letting us learn about the darker side of intelligence agencies abusing their power. On the other, being an intelligence operative and revealing top secret information is considered a treason in majority of countries. Even when done in good faith, it's not a trivial matter than can be resolved with some simple statement. Perhaps there wasn't any better method of revealing those informations, in which case it's "justified", but leaving him alone leaves a potentially dangerous precedent for the future.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, his current "exile" seems punishing enough for me. I highly doubt he's living a life of luxury in his new "home" and I imagine that this reveal took quite a lot from him.
2/3. Some degree of "spying" is necessary. It's easy to complain about it and demand full freedom without any sort of control. Unfortunately, there are people out there who abuse it for their own nefarious purposes. As technology advances, there are new methods of communication between dangerous criminals/terrorists and government should have the right to investigate them.
Of course, the main problem is "who controls the controllers"? There have to be limitations and regulations, so that this is only used when necessary, and not merely as a mean to bypass citizens' right to privacy. While some can claim that "innocent people have nothing to fear", I don't think they'd be comfortable with NSA browsing through their computer folders.
4. His view is merely one side of the discussion. It does make sense, but it's not the absolute truth - especially considering he is from NSA and as such, is naturally going to defend the idea of government "spying". I'd like to believe him, but there's always this lingering doubt that they're not telling us everything and doing much more behind the scenes.
1. It's hard to say and directly express an explicit opinion about his actions. For sure there are positives and negatives about it just exactly like there aren't only black and white colours but also all the shades of grey in between. On the formal side he surely had documents he had to sign and vows he had to take for not distributing any information to the outside world and he broke those promises, therefore he broke the law and should be punished. Although the information he released concern all of US citizens and should be made public and not kept a secret.
ReplyDelete2. My opinion is that since the US is a democratic country, they should at least let the people vote on this. I am against keeping anything the government does a secret unless it poses a threat for the country's safety (and by safety I mean military one). I think that if the government had came up with some valid arguments for creating this spying system (i.e. preventing terrorism attacks) and outlining the methods and/or privacy aspects that it would affect, it could be accepted by the people.
3. There should exist specific protocols or documents that would be made publicly available and define what methods are in use and why. They should be made available prior to voting so that people can decide whether it is a cause worthy of losing some of their privacy.
4. Since he works for NSA I doubtfully find his opinion well restrained. He states things that are too biased by his position. It's only one side of the truth. He doesn't really convince me.
I agree with you that it isn't simply situation and we should not judge him like you said on the one hand that what he did was good because in my opinion he show us what government do but in other hand he broke the law and also
Deleteexposed to the danger of some people.
1. What is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
ReplyDeleteI think he showed US citizens and the rest of the world that someone is spying on them. For me it was obvious before and I do not see any real benefits from the transfer of secret documents to Russia just to prove to us that the government is spying on its citizens. This steps certainly have a bad influence to U.S. and NATO security.
2.What do you think about that goverment spy their citizents?
They do it to keep the power and security of the state used as a good excuse because it really is a good excuse.
3.Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
There is no such line. Spying is a spying no matter what are the reasons.
4.What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
For me he is not convincing but he says what a person in his position has to say.
1. On the one hand he did well through revealing the data from NSA, on the other hand (Ethic - he worked there) he did wrong because stole confidential data from NSA.
ReplyDelete2. I don't like it what governments doing, but I can't change the governments so I have to live with this.
3. We're talking about governments of the United States, therefore my question is: Is there any line between this? I'm not sure about this.
4. This is the answer from man who working for NSA so I don't take this seriously ;)
Question:
ReplyDelete1. What is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
I think this was betrayment towards his own government and society, I think that my point will be explained in my stance in regard of next question.
2.What do you think about that goverment spy their citizents?
I think that as far as good of society is concerned government should be allowed to any means necessary to provide it. Of course the "good" is also relative term but to determine this we have such tools as democracy.
3.Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
I think it is where the knowledge is being used against public good and towards some personal goals of single beings.
4.What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
I think as far as we need to evaluate such statements we need to think about what is at stake, USA is constant target of terrorist attacks. If I would be it citizen I would really vote for more surveillance ...
After watching the video I must say that I admire Edward Snowden for his courage on fighting for his beliefs. I must also admit that I watched the whole video despite it being quite long.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Ed seems incredible... the reason why I find it so unbelievable is that I consider most people to be conformists, which just go with the flow of things. Even if some of them feel that the tasks they are assigned with are somewhat unethical or violate the rights of others, they often decide not to feel too worried about it and just do them. So hearing that a single individual decided to stand up to the NSA, showing to the public what it was they did and starting a huge social movement to support him, was like hearing about the mythical battle between David and Goliath.
As we could see Ed's actions have made him a criminal - he had to flee from his country to avoid prosecution. But hearing how his story unraveled and seeing that his actions have become the first step in the right direction makes me happy. Especially that I've heard that he is to be covered by amnesty and return to the US.
But taking Ed's story aside - personally, I am worried about this trend of spying on people on the internet. I feel that there is no justification for the actions that NSA was taking. A terrorism threat was a great excuse that they could use to cover their actions. Some people would even consider resigning from their rights to privacy in order to feel safe, but the point raised during the video thrilled me - there wasn't even a single terrorist attack that was prevented thanks to NSA's actions!
1. What is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say. Sometimes I think that he did it mostly to become well known. But anyway, all documents that he showed to the public gave us very important insight to what is acctually happening in some government agencies.
2.What do you think about that goverment spy their citizents?
Some information has to be "owned" by government to provide us public security. It's very hard to say at what point it's becoming dengerouse for citizents themself.
3.Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
That's the big question... I guess it's country specific, but either way very hard to decide.
4.What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
I don't have enought knowledge to interpret correctly his words.
I think that his got a lot of courage to say out loud such information. There Is no excuse for the USA government spying on its own citizens. For me it is wrong and immoral. If the government does such things then it is a bad government.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
ReplyDeleteYou have to be very brave to disclose such data. Thanks Edward Snowden I am more aware of the scale of inviligacji state personal life of citizens.
What do you think about that goverment spy their citizents?
Range tracking of citizens by the goverment is scandalous and defies social norms.
Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
There is no limit in my opinion, always a threat coming from the goverment not from citizens.
What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
I disagree with Richard Ledgett no reason to spy on citizens.
1. What is your opinion about that what do Edward Snowden?
ReplyDeleteI think that many different things has already been said about Mr Snowden. The revelations he revealed are quite depressing I must admit. He certified the existence of very bad events. Tech people knew that that there were technological possibilities at our disposal to spy everywhere but I think that not many of us thought that it will be instantiated.
2.What do you think about that government spy their citizens?
Let’s not call them a government. These are real people VERY interested to have power. It has nothing to do with the good of the citizens, The information is the power nowadays and the people behind this kind of projects will not step down easily.
3.Where the line between ensuring the safety of its own citizens and spying them?
It is rather a complex knob not the straight line I believe :). I do not see any clear indicator that would lead s to find an equilibrium. There are so many steps of this kind of activities and so many layers of abstraction while gathering data that there is probably no single point of balance available.
4.What do you think about that what Richard Ledgett said do you think that he is convincing?
I will quote a sentence I’ve found that is true to me: ‘… lot’s of words but feels like smoke and mirrors.’