NSA

Ron Paul (Edward Snowden's Likely Fave Politician) Was Way Ahead of The Rest of the World on Electronic Privacy

|

Ron Paul, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's likely favored politician, was worried about electronic privacy and government computer surveillance long before it became cool, as see this from that fabled year 1984, when he was concerned with the issue in the context of draft registration. He calls it "a disgusting procedure," the government examining our activities via computer:

He still feels the same way, of course, as per this statement today from Campaign for Liberty in which Paul returned the likely hat-tip from Snowden:

"We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret."

Paul was on CNN last week on this topic as well, and explained that he wished he could be surprised, and wished Americans would be more outraged, and mourns the obviously dead 4th Amendment:

My book Ron Paul's Revolution, about the many things Paul was presciently right about.

NEXT: FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron Paul, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s likely favored politician, was worried about electronic privacy and government computer surveillance long before it became cool, as see this from that fabled year 1984, when he was concerned with the issue in the context of draft registration.

    Goddamn libertarian Texas hipster!

  2. Congrats, Reason! You’ve now mentioned the NSA in thirteen consecutive HnR posts, which has got to be a new record. But I’m thrilled that you’ve selected a truly worthwhile topic to obsess over on this occasion.

    1. I heard that some important British dignitary died like a month ago. Strange that Reason had nothing about it to say.

      1. Yeah but they didn’t get this many in a row that time.

  3. Voice your concerns on this subject prior to a week ago, you’re a lunatic and a fellow traveller of Alex Jones’. Voice your concerns the week after, you’re bandwagoning on the anti-Obama hype.

    There’s no winning.

  4. John Yoo: Prosecute Snowden
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..n-john-yoo

    Snowden might be guilty of espionage, or even treason. If he is telling the truth that he leaked the existence of the PRISM program to inform the American public, then he should turn himself in. A trial would give him the opportunity to explain in public why he broke the law. If he is a spy ? it is amazing that someone with such little education and background was given such extensive security clearance ? he may well continue running abroad. It is telling that he immediately fled to Hong Kong; one wonders whether he will offer his services and knowledge to the Chinese security services next.

    1. Finally the liberals can agree with Yoo!

      1. In Soviet Russia, liberals agree with Yoo!

    2. it is amazing that someone with such little education and background was given such extensive security clearance

      Bwahhaha! They’ll give a clearance to a monkey as long as he passes the piss test.

      1. Yeah, I could probably go on clearancejobs.com and find facilities “engineer” jobs (fancy term for “custodian”) that require security clearances because they happen to be at facilities where classified work is done, and it’s a pain in the ass to make everyone stop what they’re doing and hide everything everytime someone has to come change a lightbulb or something.

    3. Sure, he could submit to torture and indefinite detention for the hollow promise of one day perhaps going to trial. Or, you know, not.

      There are consequences to running a lawless government — those who see themselves as loyal owe no obligation to a government whose leaders betray their oaths of office, and those who see themselves as lawful have no ethical obligation to a powerful criminal enterprise or the rules it imposes on those under its sway, whatever it calls itself.

  5. Well that didn’t take long — those neocons are so predictable.

  6. I like the way thgat soun ds man. Wow.

    http://www.AnonStuff.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.