Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6299 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Ambiguous in intent (Score:2)
Re:Ambiguous in intent (Score:5, Insightful)
He said very clearly that he had a problem with what the NSA was doing for years while working there, so I think he's saying that he had felt obligated to do this for a long time, and so three months ago, he took a position that would give him the best access to the materials he thought we needed to see.
Re:Ambiguous in intent (Score:3)
In most professions (say, teachers) you get in trouble if you witness wrongdoing and don't go any further to report it.
Douchebag Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really a "bad guy", not really a "hero". He did the right thing, for the right reasons, the wrong way. But then again, I'm not sure there was a better way to do it. Not really ambivalent, but not entirely on his side, and also not on the side of big government.
It needed to be done (expose the NSA), but then again, it only exposed what everyone with a brain already suspected. I mean really, who is surprised by this revelation?
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, there really was no right way - at least three former NSA people have tried to whistleblow on this without revealing secrets to the press and failed. He certainly didn't commit espionage, as the US charged him with, and rightfully fears for his life as the US is pursuing the death penalty. This is clearly a case of a US agency that is not allowed to spy on US citizens by law breaking the law and the government covering up and saying it is justified. It is not justified, it breaks the law, and violates the fourth amendment.
IMO, impeach congress, the president, and the NSA and give them all the chair for grossly abusing the Bill of Rights. Yeah, I don't really believe we should be that extreme, but that is essentially what the US government wants to do to Snowden, and it is obscene. If the ever capture him, they will have a kangaroo court and convict him of all charges and give him the chair (due to a badly written, overbroad law written to fight opposition to World War 1), so why not accuse the NSA, congress, and the president of the same? By the same law, they have been committing espionage on us and deserve to die.
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:2)
Agreed - so for me it was the second option.
And for surprise, well I'm not surprised that the US government is trying to do this; the shocking part is the huge extend of the program. Especially the parts where they did not only tap US companies, but actively hacked into foreign computers to gather more data from there.
And what may be a surprise is the complete lack of any concrete results from this massive program, other than the massive amounts of money that have been sunk into it, and the enormous loss of goodwill with the rest of the world. They claimed to have prevented "dozens of terrorist attacks" - I have yet to see any clear examples of what this program prevented. Particularly, what this program prevented that traditional police and secret service work wouldn't have prevented. I wouldn't be surprised if these prevented attacks were found through traditional policing, after which they tapped into this database (which is more convenient than having to get a warrant to get the exact same data out of the archives of the telco's involved) for additional information.
Finally I'd really like to know how many of such attacks this snooping has prevented, versus the number of attacks (or at least attempts) it provoked - if you upset so many people, there is a good chance to include lunatics who would perform such "terrorist attacks" simply out of anger.
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Them: "We stopped (X) Terrorist acts under this program, we just can't tell you about them."
Me: "Then, my dear comrade, you didn't stop anything, because without proof, it didn't happen. I cannot accept the word of someone who has lied and mislead me dozens of times"
The problem is, too few people will actually question authority, at least properly. Them telling me lies and then saying they lied to protect themselves and then lie some more doesn't really cut it. Too bad the press is the lapdog of the Demicans and Republicrats.
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:3)
So if the government puts you in a situation where your only option to help people see the truth is to go against the rules, the only way you can be good is to be a "douchebag"? I suppose if he'd gone to the MSM and they'd hushed it up he'd be "ineffectual" and if it hadn't done anything, well then he wouldn't be a hero.
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:2)
Obligatory:
http://xkcd.com/1013/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Douchebag Hero (Score:2)
Fine... you prefer instead.... "The cattle we call the populace"?
Mooo...
Missing option (Score:2)
In cahoots with Aeroflot
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
He's a hero... (Score:2)
Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
He is a true hero. He put his safety and future, his whole life, on the line for the sake of everyone else so we could get the truth.
Re:Hero (Score:3)
But then he flees from a country that he exposed secretly spies on its own people, to a country that openly spies on its people.
This is my problem with his motive. If he did it to take a stand against the US spying on us citizens, than he should not have gone to China to escape punishment. If he did this to show the government is violating the Constitution, than he has shown by where he seeks refuge that he doesn't actually mind a country spying on its own citizens, as long as they don't have a rule against it.
Either way, I can't consider him a hero until that bit of hypocrisy is explained.
Re:Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
"But then he flees from a country that he exposed secretly spies on its own people, to a country that openly spies on its people."
No, you have that incorrect....
he FLED from a country known for torturing and permanently imprisoning people that go against the current leadership. He knew that computer crime is punished far more severely than murder is. and he knew that with laws signed by Obama, he can be called an "enemy combatant" without any proof and sent away to be tortured for the rest of his life.
That is why he ran, and I certainly would as well. Only a complete moron would stay where they could be captured, silenced and forced to pay for their insolence every hour of every day for the rest of their lives until they are broken and make a public statement as to how they were evil.
THIS is the US of A, we happily and openly use torture.
Re:Hero (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is true but irreverent."
If you think that then you are a fool. Why do you think you can only be charged for one crime and the prosecution has to say "Aw shucks, we can't charge him with everything under the sun."
They WILL charge him with it as a nice tasty add-on to hopefully increase the punishment.
Re:Hero (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to double respond, but here's the quote from snowden:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.
Re:Hero (Score:3)
He wanted to end up in Iceland, I believe.
Iceland is a snow den
A Hitman (Score:2)
None of the above? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a bit indifferent to Snowden's actions, so I'm not sure if I'd qualify him as either hero or villain. Mostly because I don't think his actions _should_ have had any impact. Anyone who has been paying attention for the past twenty years was well aware that the NSA (and other information gathering agencies) spy on citizens. They've been pretty open about it for a long time. Well, open in the "Of course we can, but we would never do that, wink wink," kind of way. Privacy advocates and the FSF have been warning people about this sort of thing for years. The NSA (or CSIS or MI-5, or the former KGB) spying is not news and shouldn't be to anyone who was half awake for the past couple of decades.
Which makes me not really care that one more whistle blower came forward. I think it's nice Snowden wanted to tip off the population to what was going on, but there is the problem: Anyone who cared about privacy already knew and chances are anyone who didn't know about the NSA spying won't care now. (Or they will support the NSA spying.) This makes Snowden's move a bit naive, possibly with good intent, but he was spilling "secrets" anyone who cared to know already knew (or at least strongly suspected). I think he has basically thrown away his life and well being for nothing. I believe he wanted to be a hero, but really just wasted his time trying to inform people who either already know or don't care.
A superhero... (Score:2)
Re:A superhero... (Score:2)
Or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23053915 [bbc.co.uk]
Dishonest (Score:2)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347691/Edward-Snowden-reveals-took-job-Booz-Allen-gather-information-NSA-surveillance-programs.html
Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)
If your information is from The Daily Mail then you're already misinformed.
The Daily Mail is notorious for outright lying to create inflammatory headlines just to sell papers and ad impressions.
For example, when Tiger Woods had multiple affairs the figure quoted was with 9 women, The Daily Mail took that number and doubled it printing a headline of 18 women for which there was literally no evidence. It was just an outright made up lie to try and make their headline look more juicy than the competitors who had supposedly only unmasked 9 women...
Re:Dishonest (Score:3)
Maybe they got a bit confused were counting the holes, after all there's a front 9 and a back 9 in golf...
Mostly hero, but dubious choices (Score:3)
I think what he has revealed needed to be revealed, because Congress, all the 3-letter agencies, and the president seemed to think there was nothing wrong with it.
But why do we need to know his name? If I were him I would have talked to the reporter and stayed anonymous. And I hope any documents he leaked were absolutely necessary to reveal what's going on, not just wholesale theft/leak of sensitive information like Manning did.
Lets talk about the NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people point out this discussion about Snowden is a distraction from the discussion of the information he reveled. Perhaps the same poll should be done about the NSA.
The real hero is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if Snowden is a real hero or not. But you know who is a real hero? Senator Mark Udall, who has been talking about this, legally, for years.
There should be an additional option (Score:3)
Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
He is merely wrong by law, not by morality. If I might remind the slashdot crowd: authority is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right; morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Being an independent thinker, I side with morality, and therefore he is a hero.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
He is merely wrong by law, not by morality. If I might remind the slashdot crowd: authority is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right; morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Being an independent thinker, I side with morality, and therefore he is a hero.
I have to wonder how much greater America could be as a country if there were more of her employees and contractors not only refused to follow illegal orders, but blow the whistle on it. Politicians refusing to implement bad laws just because someone happened to donate lots of cash for future favors, security agents refusing to dig up dirt on people without probable cause, police refusing to march against a demonstration, teachers refusing to not teach safe sex, things like that.
Our current society really is quite efficient at breeding obedient robots that only think they have free will.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely nothing illegal about the orders or about the fact of the wiretapping that NSA has been accused and admitted to. Your definition of "illegal" posts as much weight as "Applekid and any other unapologetic assumptionists of this thoughtless dreck illegally posting on the Slashdot!"
You're right in that my definition of illegal doesn't matter, but unless sageres is an alias for a justice Hugo Black, your opinion doesn't matter either. Katz v. United States established a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the NSA clearly violated it. In turn, a violation of citizen's fourth amendment rights.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Informative)
That court approval is called a warrant, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." Since they don't have probable cause, the warrants are themselves illegal, and knowingly using an illegal warrant makes you complicit.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)
The wiretapping orders directly violate the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has made rulings on the limitations of executive orders in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) and more recently in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006). Both rulings limit the presidents ability to use executive orders to override laws created by congress.
"The decision may have important implications for other disputes relating to the extent of executive power and the unitary executive theory. In particular, it may undermine the Bush administration's legal arguments for domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency without warrants as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
The actions from the executive branch are in direct conflict of both Congress and the Supreme Court in laws and rulings created within the past 10 years. If you think there is "nothing illegal" about this, then you have no understanding of the even the most primitive aspects of American government with respect to the bill of rights and the 3 branches of government designed to act as checks and balances.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
John Oliver said something to the effect of: "We're not saying you broke the law, Mr. President -- we're saying that we're shocked that you didn't have to."
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, nothing he exposed was illegal. It had all been cleared by FISA courts and Congress.
AND in violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution... Mr Soetero-Obama and a very large percentage of the
Senate and House of Representatives could care less about the Constitution, and THAT is a LARGE reason why things
are not going to end well for this country..
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing a person in self defense is certainly morally acceptable
For the record, there are people who would dispute that: absolute pacifists such as Jains, Quakers, and some Amish consider it immoral to kill a person even in self-defense.
Since we can't determine his intent, we cant determine his morality.
We can at least partially determine his intent:
1. He leaked it to the world, when he could have more easily sold it to the intelligence agencies of China or Russia.
2. He left a comfortable job for a life of running around the world trying to avoid getting caught and probably killed by the US.
3. The information he leaked was about organized criminal activity by people on government payroll, hidden from the public by classification.
So the only reasonable way to read this is that this guy risked everything in order to bring to the attention of the general public some massive criminal activity being perpetrated by the US government. His motivations might not have been completely pure, but he took on significant personal risk in order to attempt to right what millions of people see as a pretty serious wrong.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think whistleblowing becomes espionage just because somebody sought out the position that allowed them to collect the evidence they were seeking. Espionage typically denotes the use of spies by governments against other governments, or corporations against other corporations (or any combination thereof, apparently). Snowden is not an operative of some other country or company. He sees himself as an operative for the US people. If we the people have "spies" to keep tabs on our own government, I'm OK with that.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:3, Insightful)
. If we the people have "spies" to keep tabs on our own government, I'm OK with that.
He may see himself as an operative for the US people, but did the US people appoint him, or elect him, or designate him so? Who gets to designate and assign these "spies"? What if the "corruption" he saw was merely playing along with the little fish in order to hook the bigger fish? Self proclaimed "spies" like this could endanger high level missions and put lots of lives in danger. He is a self appointed vigilante.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
Vigillantes aren't a problem so much as a symptom: Their appearance tells of an underlying dissatisfaction with the process of law. I can imagine how this happened: He was raised on the traditional American rhetoric of liberty, independence, the value of the constitution in limiting government, and so on. He worked for a government contractor, and concluded that while the US government claims to embody those values in public, behind the scenes at least one agency is using the constitution as toilet paper. He felt it was his patriotic duty to reveal this to the people.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from some things he's said in the interviews I've seen, I think he feels a calling from a "higher power", namely the US Constitution.. I don't recall if government contractors take the same oath that actual government employees do, but you have to remember theres that pesky statement that seems to be ignored by a large part of Congress, the bureaucracy, and the Whitehouse, namely the "Protect and Defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC" clause.. I'm betting he feels that alone overrides any laws he broke... at least that's how *I'd* feel about it...
Re:Wrong by law (Score:3)
But if you truly believe the kinds of things the NSA does are objectionable, don't seek and accept a position of trust there.
To ignore them is to passively accept what they're doing. To accept a position of trust, then defy it is treason. It's a Catch-22.
I say that as a "person in a position of trust" that is proud of what he does.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:3)
But if you truly believe the kinds of things the NSA does are objectionable, don't seek and accept a position of trust there.
Why not? Seems like a good way to get that information out to the people. Maybe you have a problem with that, but I don't. He gave up a high paying job and his citizenship in the country of his birth to give a heads up to the rest of us that we are being watched. Closely. By our own government. While I'm no fan of this shit country, I wouldn't be that selfless. By the time I reached the age of 30 most of my idealism and respect for my fellow man had been beaten out of me. If I had been in his position I probably would have leaked the info too eventually, but I would have done it anonymously from an internet cafe in Jakarta or something and using a Tor browser. I wouldn't have had the courage and heroism to come out and claim responsibility. But it's the fact of who he is and the response from the government that makes his story plausible. It's the fact that he is planning to live the rest of his life in exile for helping the rest of us that makes him heroic.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
According to whose morals?
Listening to the foreign telephone conversations is a normal spying business -- every country wiretaps for the purposes of spying.
Viewing metadata of the telephone calls is equivalent of noting sender and receiver address on an unopened envelope. We've been doing that since Kennedy administration. Nothing new here.
What Snowden did was expose this top secret program to the people who it was targeted against: the terrorists, and those who out there set to harm our national interests overseas. And if you don't think they are doing the same thing -- you are too naive to understand the world of politics, modern geo-politcial realities. Put your rose goggles back on.
Also he took with himself a treasure-trove worth of information on hard-drives and flash-drives. Possibly paper documents. He had access to the names of every single asset in every single country... You think foreign agencies would not love to get hold of that list and execute these traitors? Who knows what is happening in Moscow right now?
The guy should have been charged with treason because what he did is an equivalent of Julius Rosenberg's working Atom Bomb leak.
The "terrorists" already operate under the assumption that they are being watched. It's doubtful that this is news to them. What Snowden did was expose to the American people just how secretive their government is, how little oversight there really is, and that they're being lied to (James Clapper proclaiming *to congress* that there was no data collected on any Americans).
Top secret or common knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to the foreign telephone conversations is a normal spying business -- every country wiretaps for the purposes of spying.....What Snowden did was expose this top secret program to the people who it was targeted against
Hang on - either this was a Top Secret program which nobody knew was happening OR it was just the normal, everyday spying which every country does. If the latter then how does the revelation really have much effect? The terrorists would already know this was going on and would take steps to avoid it. You can't have it both ways: either the US has an unusually invasive level of spying and so the revelations could be said to help the terrorists or else it is just "business as usual" in which case the revelations should not really surprise anyone, especially not terrorists who you would assume are worried about being spied on.
Re:Top secret or common knowledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, no, you really do not know what constitutes "business as usual" in the intel world.
True - but this just further undermines the OP's original point. The question really is whether this level of spying is acceptable not whether it is "business as usual". That's a question for the US to decide but, if you are going to accept a level of spying on your own citizens akin to a 21st century version of the Soviet Union, then you can kiss goodbye to whatever moral authority you have left as a champion for human rights because that level of hypocrisy would be unsustainable.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to the foreign telephone conversations is a normal spying business -- every country wiretaps for the purposes of spying. Viewing metadata of the telephone calls is equivalent of noting sender and receiver address on an unopened envelope. We've been doing that since Kennedy administration. Nothing new here. What Snowden did was expose this top secret program to the people who it was targeted against: the terrorists
I don't get it. Was it top secret or did everyone know about it?
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and the scale. Monitoring a few people with reasonable cause to suspect they are involved with terrorism (or espionage, or other crimes) is one thing - but monitoring half the population of the world, including a substantial chunk of the US, with no cause other than the fact that you can just on the off-chance that you might find something by luck? Different matter altogether, when you're treating everyone as a suspect by default.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Insightful)
> According to whose morals?
Thomas Jefferson & John Adams
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)
I very much agree, what he did is against the law, but I don't think I would call it wrong.
I'd side with the NSA a bit more if they were chasing down this sort of garbage [800notes.com] and passing it on to someone for investigation/prosecution or at least to the telco so this sort of spoofing wouldn't be able to happen again.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
I very much agree, what he did is against the law, but I don't think I would call it wrong.
I think what he did was most definitely against every law relevant to his field of work. He's guilty of espionage, treason, etc. And from a rule of law perspective, he should be prosecuted like anyone else for those crimes.
But sometimes history calls for someone to be the man with the briefcase standing in front of the tank.
Also Exposes Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever else he may be guilty of, it's not treason. The founding fathers unsurprisingly had strong views on treason, having all been regarded as traitors themselves, and so in the US, treason is very, very, very specifically defined and does not apply to him.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Interesting)
...because even a politician like Palin wouldn't be dumb enough to do that? Look at the names people are calling Snowden. Those (and more) would all be used by their opponent in the next campaign cycle. A federal investigation (even just to uncover the source) wouldn't look to good either. Not to mention it would SERIOUSLY piss off the major campaign donors.
The people who should have broken this -- who our Founding Fathers expected would handle things like this -- are the press. But they're too busy worrying about Justin Bieber or whoever the celebrity of the day is. Snowden did the only thing he could that would have any hope of correcting the unlawful and immoral actions he discovered.
Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Informative)
Um, the press *did* break this story. The UK's Guardian and the US's Washington Post originally carried the story; they have to get their original information from somewhere and it's a bit difficult to get this kind of information through traditional investigative journalism; they needed a whistleblower, and Snowden provided one. That said, both those papers deserve some kudos for being amongst the few left that are actually still doing their own investiagative journalism instead of just reprinting the latest "news" off the PR wires and padding it with celebrity gossip for every issue.
What I don't get is why Snowden chose to go public with his identity when and in the manner that he did. If his aim was to expose the massive levels of surveillance that are going on, regardless of whether or not most educated people suspected as much, then why turn it into a media circus centred on the latest episode of "Where's Edward?" instead of allowing the press to focus on the core issue?
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
In intelligence terms, what you are doing is called "Dead agenting". Attacking the moral credibility of the source, instead of the informational credibility. It's is a very powerful weapon, because people are social animals and this makes your enemy do your work for you. (Undermine his reputation, and countries are less likely to help him escape.) "His girlfriend is a stripper", "It doesn't matter what he revealed since he broke the law revealing it", "He chose to work at a place doing wrong, therefore is somehow responsible for the wrong-doing he exposed... somehow."
Pot/kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because it is morally correct to lie to [...] your country, betray trusts, steal information,
Just so we're clear, you believe those are bad things, right? Lying to your own country, betraying trusts, stealing information. All bad things, yes?
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
where you swore under oath
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Insightful)
"...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."?
I think a Government agency which is acting against the principles of the Constitution and its Amendments counts as a domestic enemy.
Ergo, Snowden did not violate his Oath, neither by extension did he break the Law, as the Constitution of the United States is the pinnacle and the base of all Law in North America.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Both gun control and privacy are tough topics
No, they're not. Freedom is more important than safety, and Bill Maher is an imbecile. There is nothing wrong with the fourth amendment, and we should not violate it in an effort to 'protect' people from that which is a nearly nonexistent threat, nor should we violate it for any reason at all.
Re:Snowden (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason the Constitution is referred to as a living document.
Right - there is a process to change it. If we go through that process, fine, change it. Otherwise, let's live by it.
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
Then they should be amending it, not pretending it doesn't exist when it's in the way.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
No, please don't use that phrase to support your views. I agree with some of your original post, and support your right to your own philosophy about all this. But viewing the Constitution cheapens your argument.
The Constitution is a contract that specifies what the Federal government is, and what it can and can't do, as well as what the individual states can't do, such as print money. It can be Amended, by using the process imbedded within it. But calling it a "living document" implies that it changes on its own, that the words meant one thing when they were written and agreed upon, but now mean something else, something that you may or may not support. The changes were not agreed to by the people, or by the states, they just happened because time passed.
If you want the Constitution to be amended, push for an Amendment to be written and passed. That is the proper method to reflect a changing society.
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
The changes were not agreed to by the people, or by the states, they just happened because time passed.
I'm gonna get blasted for this, but its my view. I'd like to state beforehand that I do not agree with what I believe happened, this is just how I see it. We, the people (that's an important distinction, meaning the body politic), essentially asked for all this after 9/11. We didn't tell our government to surveil us, we didn't directly request the erosion of our rights and privacy, we simply said "we're scared, protect us from the evil people who want to crash all the things into our buildings", and the government did (whether or not they've been successful is a debate for another day). Now that we're starting to realize (through the actions of Snowden et al) exactly how this protection was put in place, and we're puffing out our collective chests and declaring how wrong it is, and it is, but that doesn't change the fact that we demanded it happen. That being said, yes, what Snowden did was morally correct, but that doesn't change the fact that if Uncle Sam manages to get their mitts on him he wont see the outside of a prison again until he is a very old man, if at all.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
The people didn't ask for any of this. Those in power were merely opportunists willing to exploit a tragedy in order to expand the powers of government past their legally mandated boundaries.
There was certainly a mass hysteria and those in power certainly exploited it.
Calling the end result "the will of the people" is just nonsense.
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee. Nobody asked me.
I thought that Bush was an ass for pushing the Patriot Act, and I think that Obama is even more of an ass for, instead of stopping it, pushing it well beyond its intended purpose.
Yes, there are still some people who wholeheartedly believe in the Consitution and, if given the choice between a 0.0001% chance of a violent death or a 100% chance of an opressive govenment, knows which one is better.
Part of the problem is the stupid two-party system. The GOP seems to be for the 2nd amendment only, while the Obama adminstration has shown that the only amendment that they like is the 5th (like when their own people use it to protect themselves). If you want politicians that uphold the ENTIRE Constitution, including ALL amendments, you are pretty much screwed these days.
On the other hand, we have the solution to our energy problem. Just hook a generator up to James Madison. I figure that he must be doing about 2000 RPM in his grave right about now.
Re:Snowden (Score:3)
It's living in a sense because circumstances change, and as circumstances change courts must make binding rulings on how the constitution applies to circumstances the writers couldn't possible have imagined.
Take the second amendment, for example. When it was written, muskets were state-of-the-art. Rifles were yet to be invented. So, when someone comes along and wished to argue that under the second amendment they have the right to own a set of medium-range missiles armed with high explosive warheads, what is a court to rule? The second amendment makes it quite clear that there is a right to bear arms, but the writers couldn't have intended for it to apply to high-explosive missiles, as such things weren't even imagined. The judge simply has to decide on the interpretation that makes the most sense, and their ruling is generally binding unless a higher court overrules or the legislature is able to pass an amendment. Or, as is more often the case, find a loophole of some form.
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
I don't recall them ever mentioning either Guy Fawkes or the Gunpowder Plot anywhere in the Federalist Papers or anywhere else.
HOWEVER the wrote the following for sure:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Re:Snowden (Score:3)
I don't recall them ever mentioning either Guy Fawkes or the Gunpowder Plot anywhere in the Federalist Papers or anywhere else.
Because it would certainly be ironic if they did.
The resistance movement that Fawkes was a member of wanted a theocratic government that was highly oppressive (think modern day Taliban) compared to the relatively liberal leadership (liberal for the time). Their plan was to replace the English king with a Catholic king and restore papal authority (which the English Reformation had removed from England). They wanted to bring back an absolute monarch with absolute religious authority, kind of negating that whole "separation of church and state" and "freedom" things that are on those papers you mentioned.
Fawkes was the muscle of the conspirators. It was Robert Catesby who was the leader.
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
Is Snowden a hero? Maybe. Was he trying to impress his ex-gf. I would say there was a chance. Was what he did wrong? Yes, whether or not you agree he was a hero, he was wrong.
I've wondered myself what his intentions were for identifying himself; he seemed to be enjoying the limelight a little too much when I saw his brief interview. Perhaps that was my interpretation---causing me to initially shrug it off as someone with a naive ego needing the recognition.
I like to think I would have done the same thing if I was in his situation (although my past experiences indicate otherwise). However, I would have remained anonymous, if it was possible; after all, there is the idea of being right but being dead right (such as the strident pedestrian stepping into the intersection ignoring the traffic because they don't have the right of way).
Perhaps Snowden wanted to do it anonymously for the same reasons, if it was possible. It probably wasn't. Based on the information leaked, the NSA should be able to figure out who it was; anonymity would have allowed them to quietly retaliate without accountability. Going public, otoh, would stifle some of their reactions. The ego boost was a plus for his personality.
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
He got out of the country before the leak. He of all people would know that there was no chance of escaping identification once the leak was done - all that hiding his identity would do is buy a little time. By going public he has earned a little political protection: No government wants to reveal their status as 'lapdog of the US' by handing him over without a fight. That's why China were so happy to let him run off to Russia and thus become Someone Else's Problem. Russia is letting him sit in the airport too, hoping he'll run off somewhere else again. If he were keeping his identity secret, he'd be quickly identified and disappeared to a secret prison somewhere with a phone call.
Re:Snowden (Score:3)
I hate to get all off-topic, but the premise is wrong:...the founding father's couldn't have forseen automatic weapons? Privateers owned ships loaded with cannons, which I'd say is a damned sight more dangerous than an assault weapon, even today.
Re:Snowden (Score:3)
And yet, those long-dead people still have the most recent statement on record. WE foresaw, uh I mean, aft-saw? all these things: nuclear weapons predate nearly everyone's voting adulthood.
We have had decades to pass new amendments to override the 2nd and 4th. We haven't done it. America has chosen for the amendments to remain as written in 1789. (Which is pretty crazy no matter which side you're on; everyone's gotta hate that confusing (irrelevant? critically important?) "militia" phrase.)
Of course you can make a persuasive case that the 2nd and 4th amendments need to either be repealed or modified. If/when we write new amendments to vote on, I'm sure the balance you refer to, will play a heavy role.
Who knows, maybe now's as good a time as any. Wanna try writing a draft of a new amendment, to update the constitution to deal with 20th century fears (nukes) and resignations (armed resistance is futile)? We could have an informal poll on it, right here.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democracy, the PEOPLE got the last say, good or bad. Even the peoples choice the entire country is going to fry, that is the peoples choice. That is how a democracy works. We put up with a lot of shit because of democracies, what is the point of it all if the government then does what it wants anyway? Then we might as well have a proper dictatorship and have the trains run on time, allow some competent leaders to rule and not just the Mr Clean and Mr Popular.
A lot of people ain't all the upset about the privacy invasion perse, average people know they haven't really got any and that they are never going to be important enough for anyone to care about them anyway.
But they were NOT asked. They weren't ASKED "are you in favor of being spied on" they were spied on and then told they didn't mind by polls nobody polled them for.
And THAT is why Snowden is a Hero. NOT for exposing the spying but that democracy is dead. And democracy didn't even die because of the spying it died because nearly EVERY politician who should be against the spying is attacking Snowden and the few defending him are just upset it wasn't them doing the spying.
Frankly I doubt it will have much effect. The rumors of Echelon were bad enough but while me an others have claimed that total espionage would just be to costly and inefficient, we were proven wrong and it has been a bi-partisan effort. There is no alternative left anymore.
The system will continue for a long time simply because any alternative will be to costly and to much work but the democratic western system as we have known it since WW2 has come to an end. The semi-competent parties are all corrupt to the core and the outsiders are so fucking insane they make the corrupt people look wholesome.
malignant narcissist at best (Score:3)
first, and people ignore this constantly, the NSA's phone program's *basic scope and function* was revealed **in 2006**...just accept it: yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
that put's Snowden's actions in an entirely different context...whether or not 'the media' or whoever guides the 'national conversation' knew or understood what that 2006 report meant...IT WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE...
Snowden revealed powerpoint slides with **operational details** like the name, counter-intel operations in China, etc...it's not the same as the Pentagon Papers or other famous leaks at all
2nd....Anonymous leak...why didn't he? If he's just a humble IT guy working to help the world, as he claims, then he should have done this anonymously. He contacted a documentary filmmaker first...that tells you something...
3rd...blackmail....what if this guy tried to download/share illegal files with the wrong people and now they have 'dirt' on him?
Snowden is not Brad Lee Manning (whom I consider a real, if misguided, hero)....he's a dork who is high off his own pseudo intellectualism and got caught up in something he wasn't prepared for, IMHO
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the issue has become about Snowden rather than the facts that he uncovered. Very shrewd of those embarrassed by this discovery to spin the news that way.
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
See what you get when you don't go along with the groupthink?
Re:Snowden (Score:2)
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, if only such a codified constitution had a means to update itself. Such "Amendements", as we might call them, would truly be a godsend.
Re:Snowden (Score:3)
The rule of law like most frameworks that create a set of ground rules are most inconvenient to those that are most unscrupulous and no real harm to anyone else.
Without the rule of law, doing stupid nonsense becomes a lot easier.
In truth, the law is not as stale as some people would like to claim. Rapid advances in technology really aren't nearly as significant as some people would like to claim. Technology isn't really the problem. People are the problem and they don't change nearly as much as technology.
The modern conceit that "everything today is new" is a just an excuse for ignoring inconvenient rules.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
not now, when he's without a beard.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
I'm curious how you think Einstein and Newton are heroes.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Do you not?
Re:Snacks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Snacks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
Yeah, he wasn't whistle blowing. He's in cahoots with the bad guys!
Just a couple things though, couldn't he have just quietly fed China/Russia et. al. information and have them disseminate it for him or just keep it all for themselves?
Couldn't he have just made these docs public while hiding the fact that he was the source?
Name five countries that would have been acceptable landing spots for him, which would not have immediately turned him over to the U.S. government.
Trying to besmirch the character and ideals of someone whose excrement has more appeal than the collective U.S. intelligence agencies is a waste of breath.
A stooge indeed (Score:2)
Re:Missing Option -- a Stooge. (Score:2)
This is why I chose the neutral option of "ambiguous in intent". I agree there is more to the story than has been exposed.
Re:Missing Option -- a Stooge. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, you like reading spy novels?
There's literally no evidence for anything you say so "Everything about the Edward Snowden case" seems to be overstating it a bit. Nothing about the Edward Snowden case currently offers even a slight bit of evidence for your theory.
Like Assange, like Manning, like the Lulzsec kids, like the Arab Spring, he's just another of many who at a time of financial turmoil has finally been pushed over the limit of what he as a person is willing to take from global corporations and governments pushing way beyond their necessary remits. It's a kickback of a decade of post-9/11 destruction of government transparency and accountability sometimes backed up by worsening economic conditions leading to lower standards of living. People have had enough and have begun to snap, it's as simple as that.