Newsmax reports that according to according to KRC Research about 64 percent of Americans familiar with Snowden hold a negative opinion of him. However 56 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 have a positive opinion of Snowden which contrasts sharply with older age cohorts. Among those aged 35-44, some 34 percent have positive attitudes toward him. For the 45-54 age cohort, the figure is 28 percent, and it drops to 26 percent among Americans over age 55, U.S. News reported. Americans overall say by plurality that Snowden has done “more to hurt” U.S. national security (43 percent) than help it (20 percent). A similar breakdown was seen with views on whether Snowden helped or hurt efforts to combat terrorism, though the numbers flip on whether his actions will lead to greater privacy protections. “The broad support for Edward Snowden among Millennials around the world should be a message to democratic countries that change is coming,” says Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “They are a generation of digital natives who don’t want government agencies tracking them online or collecting data about their phone calls.” Opinions of millennials are particularly significant in light of January 2015 findings by the U.S. Census Bureau that they are projected to surpass the baby-boom generation as the United States’ largest living generation this year.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:56PM
The question isn't whether he damaged U.S. interests abroad; it's whether that damage is worth it to try to make our government better.
It's easy to say, "He betrayed the U.S.! BURN HIM!" It's much harder to explain to people why he did it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:17PM
"U.S. interests" are not the interests of the public, but are the interests of the elites and military industrial complex. The real question is how effective the latest spooky threat (ISIL) has been at convincing the public to give up all rights. Of the Americans that bother paying attention to the news, most fail to notice that the recent "foiled terrorists plots" are just FBI stings of the mentally ill. The public was starting to forget the measly thousands killed on 9/11, so it's time to blow ISIL out of proportion. Even Rand "filibuster the drone war" Paul has to force himself to sound hawkish. Jihadi Tsarnaev's kawaii solitary confinement middle finger proves that we must remain at war eternally.
2015: The worst year of our lives until next year. And the year after that ×∞
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:44PM
There was no damage. All damage was caused by the US government itself for violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties. A messenger does not cause damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:21AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Why are you mad at the NSA? They are simply the messengers. It is the people who would act on that information you should be mad at. The NSA is just carrying information. How can you do damage merely by releasing information?
If you don't think a messenger can cause damage, you are pretty dull.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @03:20AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Yes, and?
Why are you mad at the NSA? They are simply the messengers.
And in collecting the information, they violate the highest law of the land, as well as people's fundamental liberties. They're not messengers for anything. Then, many who refused to play their game were destroyed by the government (an action), and there is also the matter of all the equipment they have to install everywhere under threat of force to even begin the mass surveillance, and the taxpayer dollars they have to use to do all this. Messengers my ass.
If you don't think a messenger can cause damage, you are pretty dull.
No, just logical. Whereas you might take a more "common sense" approach where you mindlessly repeat common fallacies, I prefer not to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:01PM
At least this time they had the decency to spell out who they were painting with the "millennial brush".
Nothing here is surprising though, the younger a person is, generally the more native their grasp of the technology of the day is. Also generally, the more anti-authoritarian they are. Similarly, the older a person is, the more accepting of what they're told by the mainstream news (the technology of their day) and the more complacent of the government they are.
Of course, then there's the question of whether that 64 percent ARE familiar with him, or think they're familiar with him. Also, Dunning-Kruger effect.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:04PM
Who cares what older Americans think about Snowden? They created a country that is ridiculously in debt, with a police state that they did not inherit. It wasn't the "millennials" senators' that voted for the patriot act, but the millennials are going to have the nearly impossible task of removing it.
Older generations have an opinion on public policy? Well they can fucking keep their opinion to themselves until they pay their debts to future generations.
PS Ron Paul voted against the patriot act, and then did it again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:16PM
you are young, I can tell.
come back in 20 yrs when YOUR generation has 'ruined the world'.
it will happen. you are not special even though you guys get 'awards and trophies' for just existing, while in school. your generation will make the world a MUCH worse place, that much I am quite sure of. if there is a generation that thinks too much of itself, its your generation.
the 'old guys' did mess things up, but you'll be an old guy too, soon enough. think back about this post when your time comes.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:26PM
Many of the millenials will likely turn out to be fuckups of absolutely COLOSSAL proportions, but CirclesInSand is not wrong about the older generations being (mostly) responsible for the state of US government today. Just because that generation will make their own mistakes doesn't mean that previous generations didn't also make mistakes.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: -1, Troll) by ncc74656 on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:01PM
"Will?" That implies that the precious little special snowflakes already aren't.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:07PM
Not at all... they can be both. :)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @01:18AM
Wow. I love the anti-millenialism here.
I was never told I was a special little snowflake. After I got out of school, I was basically told that I was a useless weight on society despite working my ass off and constantly finding ways to be productive and employed. By older generations, which accuse my ilk of being entitled brats because we want to work and make the world a better place.
Which oddly, the older generation told us in no uncertain terms that if we work our asses off, get degrees, and go into the world to work, we would be able to do provide for ourselves. I don't want shit handed to me that I don't deserve; I want work to mean something. For many of us, it's true, but only the entirely blind would argue that it's not a myth that hard work = success. And incidentally, you fine older folks created a lovely system of grade inflation with this myth wherein everyone and their cousin has to (if they weren't born into money) get student loans and struggle to pay them off for the next thirty years in a protracted, .1% centric economy.
What really pisses me off is "older generations" (and other kool-aid drinkers) telling me that "deal with it, this is the way the world is" when they made it that way. Police state, corporations with obscene amounts of power, unmitigated and perpetual environmental disaster... pick your issue. While you were all off being "productive" "patriotic" "true Americans," you caused a lot of damage. And yes, now I'm going to have to clean your shit up because you consider yourself finished.
Don't get me wrong, I have all the respect in the world for my elders. I just don't have respect for people that can't take responsibility for what they've created. There are great things that past generations have done - insane, unparalleled greatness (the Enlightenment/railroads/WWII/space race/winning the Cold War) - but that doesn't mean you made no mistakes or that you don't have to own up to it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 24 2015, @02:36AM
This whole story is massive generational flamebait, among other things. Entitled twits come in all ages. The previous generation always thinks the next one is going to Hell. There used to be this talk that Baby Boomers were the selfish "Me" generation. Don't hear that so much any more now that their elders, the Silent Generation, no longer control the levers of power.
Now we're routinely treated to Baby Boomer crap. They constantly ask why we can't equal their achievements, as if we haven't accomplished anything, and as if there was just as much opportunity as they had. We have accomplished much, and that in spite of less opportunity. Middle class pay has been stagnant or declining since the 1970s, and it's largely their fault! Despite all their anti-government talk, they couldn't be bothered to rein in government whenever it was abused by private interests to steal from the public. What were they doing? Getting stoned and zonked at the ultimate hedonistic expression of slackdom, Woodstock. It was all they could do to shut the Vietnam War down. It should have ended sooner. Not saying we're doing much better, but at least we tried Occupy Wall Street. They have trouble understanding what we have accomplished. The Internet is huge, but they can't see past the sharing it enabled, tarring that as piracy. I rate the Internet a much more significant accomplishment than the moon landing. The moon landings, impressive though they were, are at heart accomplishment theater, undertaken to show up the Commies. It was a big bonanza for science, but ultimately it failed to entrench a scientific mindset in the public, who today continue to view science as a sometimes useful tool, and often as lies and propaganda of liberals, and as anti-religion.
Besides which, the whole idea of a baby boom was really dumb. Historically, overpopulation has been a much bigger and more common problem than underpopulation. So they were the population boom that got to fill the empty spaces created by war, and now some of them wonder why we can't do the same, as if there's still lots of empty space to fill. There isn't. It's very likely that not only will resources not increase, they won't even hold steady. In the near future there could well be be less of everything, when Climate Change begins to bite.
(Score: 1) by ncc74656 on Wednesday May 06 2015, @02:04PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:30PM
Y'know, if your best retort to the accusation that your generation made things worse is that the next generation won't be any better, maybe you shouldn't be retorting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:16PM
On the other hand, if all you have to say is STFU, maybe its because the shoe fits just a little too tight for your comfort.
Those who won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:31PM
The critical point is one thing has happened and the other might happen. Between the two, one has been proven and the other is angry speculation.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @12:22AM
On the other hand, if all you have to say is STFU
Actually, the response of "You're just as bad, or will be!" is not a logical argument to begin with. The one you replied to merely pointed that out. Someone's arguments stand on their own merits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:37PM
Yeah, I put the men's size 12 shoe on my cock. And the shoe was too small. Now my cock hurts, and you're damn right I'm going to bitch and moan about it!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gishzida on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:46PM
Hmmm... Don't count everyone in a generation as being responsible for bad policy and evil government. I think that the release of those NSA documents point out how our government has been pwned by liars and profiteers. The people who tell us one thing and do another... "Newspeak" for the post millennial world.
Snowden is a hero to me... and I'm 61.
What I find disturbing but at the same time incredibly funny is that the so called "Hippies" of my generation have been accused as being responsible for everything going down the toilet...
The folks that have betrayed this country have nothing to do with "Peace, Love, and Music". They have nothing to do with being liberal or even moderate. They are the embodiment of Dylan's "Masters of War"-- the people responsible for the current despair have always been focused on "Profits, Lies, and Murder". They'll send your sons and your daughters down into death and darkness all for an extra nickle of dime. Monsters like that exist in *every* generation.... Forty years from now look back to this time and ask yourself "Was my generation any better?" I hope with all my heart you can say it is... but right now it looks like you are losing to the blackness of the people that think a "few white lies" helps the medicine go down" [brought to you by your friends the soul-less corporations].
I would say that your target this generation should be the "Libertarians" and the "Tea Party"... Why? Because they believe in a "free market" where anyone is allowed to do *anything* for a profit. What the tea baggers and "libertarians" fail to realize is that "free market" is the Darwinian Ideal for the Soul-less Corporations that have taken root and control over so many aspects of our daily life. The idea that a "Soul-less" Corporation are people is insane. I use the term "soul-less" in the sense of 'one without compassion'. If corporations are "people" why aren't they tried and convicted like every other "person" including being sentenced to death for murder or prison for robbery, rape, burglary, and 9000 other crimes.
Forty years of tea bagging and "libertarians" will means America and its citizens not only being pwned but pucked as well. Don't like that idea? Do something about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:43PM
> If corporations are "people" why aren't they tried and convicted like every other "person"
Turns out Arthur Anderson was. The company basically got the equivalent of a corporate death penalty. Accenture spun out first, but the accounting part that was left was dead and gone in less than a year after the DoJ prevailed in court. And... that was the start of "too big to fail" - the death of Arthur Anderson and the job-losses associated with it made the DoJ into pussies and now they are afraid to press for criminal charges of any significant measure any more.
(Score: 1) by gishzida on Friday April 24 2015, @09:38AM
Anderson was small change. Almost any CPA that sits on "mahogany row" in any firm is "dirty" or knows someone down the row that is. I used to work for a CPA corporation / partnership during the late 90's. "Pump and Dump" or "shake and bake" -- no method was too low to make money... I even worked briefly for a genuine scam artist who had an "internet start-up"... which consisted of a bunch of people who knew how to peel money away from the unwary. Banks and Credit Unions are not much better. I worked IT for a CU... The only difference is one of scale.
It's been said that if you ever work at a fast food restaurant you'll never want to eat fast food again... the same can be said of the financial industry.
Money spells corruption.
It also spells power.
The Koch Brothers want Scott Walker to be the next president. Can you guess why? Anyone backed by that much money should be on your list of people never to vote for... if you do, you can bet you just slit your own throat.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @12:27AM
Corporations by and large only claim to support the free market, but their actions suggest otherwise. They claim to want a free market, and then bribe the government for more draconian laws to increase the strength and length of their government-enforced monopolies over implementations of ideas and procedures. They claim to want a free market, and then get deals with local governments that grant them monopolies in those areas. They claim to want a free market, and then try to get the government to destroy their existing or future competitors. It just goes on and on. The "free market" is nothing more than lip service, and what it really means to them is that they're free to have the government destroy all their competitors.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday April 24 2015, @08:38AM
"All markets are free, but some markets are more equal than others."
(Score: 2, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:32PM
I've read definitions of millennial that based on my birth year included me, but now way in hell I'd be lumped in with those impotent punks.
Although I am 100% in favor of what Snowden and other leakers/whistleblowers do, that is the only thing I have in common with Millennial punks.
Millenial punks talk and they talk, but they don't actually get of their asses to even vote. They'll say, "Fuck authority!" but unlike previous generations will cry and turn-tail at the sight of a single cop-car heading toward their protest. They will say, "Fuck the patriarchy!" and turn right around and raise their hands waving towards an authority figure to tell on the meanie-head saying things they don't agree with.
I was at a packed bar just the other day, and wanted to get the bartender's attention for another drink, so I made a very temporary squeeze between two young girls who were talking. They looked at each other silently and incredulously, like, How dare he! They could have easily craned their necks behind me and carried on their conversation until I moved away, but one of them squeeked some shrill sounding bitchiness at me I tuned out. When they screeched at me again I slowly looked down at the one and said, "Oh, we got a Valley-girl here, huh?" with a haughty grin and an upturned chin. In response to that heinous crime they both simultaneously raised their arms with their index fingers pointed at me saying, "bartender, bartender, throw this guy out! He's being a dick! Throw him out!" Both the bartender and I shrugged as he solemnly handed my my drink and I moved away.
Those two tartlet girls are pretty much the embodiment of the punks coming of age today. Get off my lawn!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:42PM
> Both the bartender and I shrugged as he solemnly handed my my drink and I moved away.
Lol. Based on the incoherent screeds of hate you are known for posting here, I have a strong suspicion that your actions in your version of the story are more than just a little toned down. I mean, the fact that you even posted this self-aggrandizing and ultimately completely off-topic story really kind of makes it all self-contradictory.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:03PM
You might be correct that there is more to the story, but to EF's defense I have several siblings that fit squarely into the Millennial age bracket (10+ year age gap between me and them) and they would definitely behave as EF said. And they would do it with less provocation that EF admitted to.
If I was in that situation and had my wits about me, I'd like to say something like, "You mind if I order a drink at the only empty spot in the bar or are you going to stare at me like self-centered, stuck up bitches?"
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:34PM
He pointed out that there were no empty spots at the bar and he forced his way between two people talking.
Secondly, how can a generation be derided for not having any sense of manners in the same breath that they are derided for responding to someone else's bad manners?
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:06PM
That's a good way to put it. I think the proper manners in this scenario would be to to interject an "excuse me," which would queue the women to stance closer together so the gap at the bar is behind one of the women instead of between them. Better yet, it is common practice to create a gap when you are at a crowded bar and see another patron approach the bar, so the person approaching has a place to order a drink without having to interrupt your conversation. Even if you don't create the gap, staring incredulously is far from the proper response and demanding the staff to kick somebody out because a guy edged himself to the bar in the middle of your conversation just to order a drink, and happened to say something rude about your rude stares, is outright ridiculous.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:36PM
> because a guy edged himself to the bar in the middle of your conversation just to order a drink,
> and happened to say something rude about your rude stares
And that is the point in the story at which his version of events diverges from everyone else's.
At the barest minimum he was drunk off his ass and his comments weren't limited to just one expertly delivered line.
I'd say there is a more than fair chance that he put his hands on one or both of them at some point.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:50PM
"Excuse me"
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:35PM
You're not wrong.
But not because of people like the GP. I suspect they sincerely want to address the systemic issues. You can see the assholes on facebook who are going to drag our generation down. Blindly re-posting vaguely political memes without concern for critical evaluation. They're going to fuck things up, because there's a lot of them, and they don't sincerely care. But, we can be quite sincere in hating the fuckery that got us here.
But you're a fucking idiot dumb-fucker to drag out the imaginary "trophies" bullshit. It's a fiction you invent to make yourself feel better. I've gotten 2 trophies in my youth. One for coming in 2nd place in a robotics competition, one for coming in first place in a martial arts tournament. Zero for my years of losing at baseball. No one seriously faced much different. You(and I mean you and other idiots, not your entire generation) invented this thing almost wholesale.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:12PM
But you're a fucking idiot dumb-fucker to drag out the imaginary "trophies" bullshit.
If millenials are handed trophies like candy, which generation is the one buying and distributing them?
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:40PM
Surprisingly, it's the New Worlder generation. Hundred year old Irish zombies rising from their grave to hand out trophies.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:21PM
I can confirm that I received a trophy each year for playing soccer, despite losing >80% of the games. However, I would like to note the following caveats:
1 - It was "recreational soccer", which essentially means "if you pay money, you're on a team".
2 - I would not have been a good enough player to make any real team.
3 - The trophies were laughable in size (4 inches? 5?)
4 - There were 'real' trophies (for our losing team), for players who were MVP, or otherwise exceptional.
5 - None of the players felt like they were 'earned', 'deserved', or 'entitled' and we all usually laughed about it and threw them away.
The competitive leagues (of which I would never play) had 'real' trophies (3-4 feet high), tryouts, out-of-city competitions, daily practices, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:22PM
I played recreational sports for many years over many sports from the 70's into the 80's, and I received one trophy when we won the city championship. That's it. No ribbons, certificates, "thanks for playing". And the trophy was about 4" high as well, and it was one of the most treasured items I had because it was earned. My sons get participation trophies and by the next week, they couldn't give a shit about them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:22PM
First off not the original AC.
20 years probably wont be enough time for the melenials to have ruined the world. Taking the definition as from the TFS of 18 to 34 yo (born 1981-1997), and noting that the average age of a member of the US house is 57 US (Senate is 63) then the melianls will not be widely represented for more than 20 years (this maths is shit but for a fag packet calc illustrates the point). So when we get back in 20 years it will still not be the melenials who have caused the problem.
Of course if the numbers stand the melenials will have to shoulder alot more of the blame as they supported (by voting, or not opposing "older" people). But currently your argument boils down to we are bad but not as bad as what will come next. Without having tested how "melenials" would run somthing. As for the Idea that this generation thinks too much of itself, I'm not so certain. Other prioties are key and the majority of people are focussed on themselves and those around them (friends, family, neighbours). I doubt this is knew, I think there may be a merging of the the groups a bit further away. So peole who melenials are not in direct (human) contact with are all grouped together, and that there is less of a increasing circles mentality.
This of course assumes that your prediction is correct and policies in 20 years continue to make the world a worse place. Although I think you may be correct I hope you are not, I can't really imagine something worse than what is happening at the moment (with corporations running amok, and removing citizens liberties because "terrorism") without completely destroying the appearance of democracy. So I think the melenials will either reverse alot of the shit, or there will a complete breakdown of the structure as we know it.
As is probably clear I am in the "melenials" group, and not from the U.S.A. I used the U.S.A. as a an example here because (1) I'm assuming you are, (2) The story is about opinions of U.S. Citizens (3) As an international site the U.S. status as most looked at system gives a certain amount of accessibility. That said as a British person exactly the same issues are experienced here; average age of the house of commons is 50 (and growing), we are just as prone to corrupt business as the US and seem to be even more ready to give up our freedoms because of whichever monster the tabloids can make some noise about this week.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:37PM
I've thought the same, until recently. I now question my past certainty.
In talking with my stepdaughter and some of her friends, I've come to realise that my views on some things differ quite a bit from theirs.[and I found myself sounding like my elders did when I was young:-( ]
So what we might see as 'worse', the newer generation may see as 'better'. POV/expectations may be polar opposites on some things, same on others, and various points in between on others.
Another thing my stepdaughter pointed out:
"You're not going to be around in 40 years when I'm your age, so I wonder how important your ideals are, and will be to us, except to point out how we don't want things to be."
I've had to really think about that concept. I think she may have had a point. I am still thinking about it.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:13PM
you are young, I can tell.
come back in 20 yrs when YOUR generation has 'ruined the world'.
Ahem. National debt is still growing. You still aren't qualified to give me your opinion. But I do realize that there is a (microscopic) minority of older persons who voted for 3rd party / independent / Libertarian etc instead of the endless promise of goodies. I don't mean to slight them.
you are not special even though you guys get 'awards and trophies' for just existing
Is that worse than getting government money just for existing, despite not having the tax revenue to fund it? That's a rhetorical question by the way, see above.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:20PM
The problem is that the older generations vote, and the millenials (mostly) don't. So the only opinion that counts in government circles is that of the older generations. The sad and inevitable result of the US's first-past-the-post voting system is that only the largest voting bloc's opinion matters to the elected politicians.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:02PM
What you say would be true IF we had a working democratic republic.
The thing is that there are supermajorities of USAians who agree on what needs to be done and they are ignored.[1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [popularresistance.org]
What we have is a gov't by the rich and for the rich.
[1] The AdBlock filter ##widget is recommended.
As long as money is speech and corporations are people, voting (especially voting for the lesser of 2 evils) will have minimal effect.
The folks who can staple a 6-figure check to their lobbying effort are in control and that won't be changed without a constitutional amendment.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan#headline [wolf-pac.com]
https://movetoamend.org/#main [movetoamend.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:46PM
Please stop this "massive debt" nonsense, and start understanding how fiat money works.
The problem isn't debt, its that the money that is created mostly comes from banks to finance gambling in the financial sector without adding real value. Much better if that money had gone directly to the low and middle class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:44PM
pay debnts
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:01PM
The millenials are making the world for selfies and file sharing!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:16PM
Good luck to you. Gen-X here. I voted against Bush because it was clear to me that if elected, he would find some excuse or another to invade Iraq so he could be a war president like his daddy. I urged my "representatives" not to let the madness happen. I urged everyone I knew to vote to avoid the whole debacle. Yet here we are, well over a trillion dollars later. Short of going Oswald, what would you have had me do?
Don't worry, one day you'll be my age and wondering how the ongoing disaster can be called your fault.
I'm guessing you are old enough to vote, probably old enough to run for at least some offices. Certainly old enough to protest. So why is this shit still happening? Why haven't you stopped it? Yeah, me too!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:52PM
I voted against Bush
Whereas I voted *for* a third party candidate. I don't vote "against" people, as that just creates more evil and the evil gets worse and worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:24AM
No, its the voting for evil that makes the evil get worse, voting against that evil is the only option that might actually have an effect. The reason the US has no left is because of morons only voting for right and far-right candidates, making everyone else shift even further right; if people voted for less-right instead of further-right, we'd be able to get politicians that are somewhat-centrist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:41AM
No, its the voting for evil that makes the evil get worse, voting against that evil is the only option that might actually have an effect.
Yes, that is what I meant. I vote for candidates I believe to be good. However, the way he phrased it (voting against Bush) led me to believe he likely voted Democrat, rather than for a non-evil (or at least not provably evil) candidate. You should vote for good candidates, not merely against bad ones. That's also voting against evil, but the distinction is important.
I don't believe "left" and "right" have any real meaning anyway. I just care if the policy is the right one to me, not if it's considered "left", "right", or "centrist".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 24 2015, @05:43AM
Considering that Bush won and dragged us into war anyway, it hardly matters who or what I voted for.
(Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:55PM
Which generation can we call primarily responsible for the acceptance of handing over all our personal information, data, photos, and GPS coordinates to corporations (and thus government agencies)? I don't think it was any generation that was already an adult (or in college or highschool) by the mid-1990's when WWW really got popular among the non-techie population. Which generation(s) contribute heavily to FOSS, and which generation(s) put all their effort into get-rich-quick phone/tablet apps that harvest user/subscriber data and serve ads?
Maybe instead of turning this into a young versus old flamewar, we should be identifying technological and political solutions to the advancing statist strangehold.
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Friday April 24 2015, @12:50AM
So if the elders do not like Snowden, it might be because they know the value of "remaining united" and deal with internal affairs with some "grace" when the go out of proportion,
Other elders stand up for historical lies, because they know that exposing them will lead to ruthless retaliation, and the truth is not worth the cost in violence...
If you take a look at east europe, and see the hatred, violence, poverty and political failure that was an all to intimate company for many of the "old" people, mostly those 40+, you might understand why the statement "they are ruined for life" might apply.
Indeed, they make decisions reflecting anger or hate or fear, because they actually are in a more or less permanent state of anger. hate or fear. Of course, they may be good people, but still, ruined good people.
They have to be more or less completely die out and replaced by the younger, more optimistic, and more technology oriented people, before the course they set for the ship can be turned around.
As to the mentality "not like them/him" here is the deal: the phenomenon of "not liking" is today tainted with unfairness: common examples are dislike against niggas just for the sake of it, dislike of gays just of prejudice, religion or aversion... Hmm, are we trying to make "disliking" a cultural crime?
But, in other parts of the world, there is more to it. People are. for ethnic and historical reason dangerous to eachother,,, In other parts of the world, people dont like others for reasons.
In east europe, if someone does not like gipsys, russians, serbs, a politicians (politicians) or the church, there probably is a more intelligent reason for it, then just being racist or idiot.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:30AM
"Not liking" somebody solely because of the color of their skin, or other traits they were born with and can do nothing about, is pretty much the definition of bigotry. And yes, that should be a cultural crime. Everyone should have equal opportunity; people should not be allowed to remove others' freedoms or opportunities because they were born with the misfortune of not being a straight, white male.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:39AM
So if the elders do not like Snowden, it might be because they know the value of "remaining united" and deal with internal affairs with some "grace" when the go out of proportion
If the government is violating the constitution, remaining united with them is highly unpatriotic and cowardly. There is no value in that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:23PM
The phrase "Except for the current young generation, most Americans dislike X" has had a LOT of valid answers for X over the years.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:33PM
The question is not "did Snowden hurt US security" - I don't think it's in question that he did - the first question is "Did Snowden do the right thing by blowing the whistle on the US government doing things ranging from shady to outright unconstitutional?" I think the answer to that one is, also, unequivocally YES. If our government is above the law, then we might as well not have a constitution and we should just crown Jeb Bush King of America (and give him absolute power) and be done with it.
The second question is "Is a post-Snowden government better than a pre-Snowden government?" We won't have an answer to that one until after the next NSA whistleblower. The longer we go without one, the more likely it is that the government has cleaned up their act and is being within the bounds set for it by the Constitution.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:04PM
Or the longer we go without one [soylentnews.org], the more they have enhanced their internal security and insider threat programs [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:24PM
The real problem is you're buying into the premises that:
- secret government agencies, operating well, do more good than harm
- by and large, those agencies are run well enough
The reality is, for all we know, secret agencies could be the most expensive
(and generally most harmful, short of actual wars) type of esoterics ever invented
or an absolutely integral part of societiy, running astonishingly well most of the time.
As far as actual data is concerned: n/a
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TestablePredictions on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:35PM
I think we're basically in agreement, but let's see if we can improve your phrasing:
INCORRECT: "... it's not in question that [Snowden] did [hurt US security]."
CORRECT: Surveillance agencies hurt US security. The messenger, Snowden, who informed us is in no way responsible for the harm.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SrLnclt on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:37PM
While I strongly support Snowden and what he has done, at this point they might be right.
He tried to start a national debate on privacy vs. security, and to some degree succeeded. There are three ways things can go from here - the pendulum can swing toward personal rights and privacy, it can swing toward providing more surveillance, or we can maintain the status quo. The world is ever changing, so I see maintaining the status quo unlikely. Unless enough people voice their opinions and convince the people with the power in the government to roll back some of these programs and protect individuals constitutional rights, the powers that be are going to be emboldened. If nobody tells them no, that means they will push the envelope even further. There will also be those in certain 3 letter organizations that feel betrayed by Snowden and push for even tougher security and governmental oversight of people's daily lives.
I believe a bigger surveillance state will actually do more to hurt US national security than help it. It will erode relationships with international players (except maybe those who are in the inner circle and sharing information). It will cause companies to avoid business with the US and US based companies. At this point I am also unsure anything substantial for personal privacy may come of the Snowden revelations. While not the direct cause, Snowden's actions may lead to an even bigger surveillance state, which will hurt US national security.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:40PM
The surveillance state will create new secular terrorists. Aaron Swartz committed suicide but what if he had visited an NSA facility instead?
(Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:29PM
I find your prediction chilling but very probable.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 24 2015, @03:37AM
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. if we start getting suicide bombers and attacks on government facilities on US soil, its because our democracy has been broken beyond repair and we've been forced to resort to our final responsibility as citizens of a democracy - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:54PM
Snowden was on John Olliver's show a few weeks ago, and they made a good point about how unless you have years of IT experience/training, you can't even comprehend what can be done with the data they are sucking up. People actually think that this is the only thing preventing another 9/11 type attack.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:28PM
I think the older generation understand more than you do.
Its not about the tools used. Its about the citizen's total loss of control of our government. There exists no checks and balances. Its become a fiction, lost to a free-floating concept of what the constitution actually says.
It started with the Seventeenth Amendment, which essentially stripped the states of their last vestige of power over the republic, destroying federalism. But it continues today with every little issue gets pushed up to the federal level, end running local or state control.
Its not about computers.
Snowden is a patriot. He saw what they were doing. Others saw it too, and went along to get along.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @03:36AM
Maybe it's not just about computers, but most people (old or young) don't know why this so-called "metadata" matters or understand how it can be and is used for oppression.
Honestly, even to the supposedly 'tech-savvy' younger generation, computers are largely black boxes. Sure, they can get on Facebook and use some Microsoft word processor garbage that they likely learned how to use in a Microsoft Essentials high school course, but they don't understand any of it, and what's happening in the background is completely alien to most of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:44AM
Pardon my ignorance, but how did an amendment dealing with the election of senators do that?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @04:23PM
Senators were elected by State legislatures prior to the 17th Amendment. This was a counterbalance to the House, whose members were elected by the people at large.
If the people at large voted for "free" crap that the federal government would try to push down as an unfunded mandate that the States would have to cover, the State legislature could push back by electing Senators to counter legislation coming from the House.
In short, government moved slower prior to the 17th Amendment, and it was a very good thing.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 24 2015, @03:40AM
Protip - The NSA has your dick-pics. this is what their dragnet allows. say no to governmental hoarding of dick-pics, repeal the Patriot Act!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @07:47AM
Most people are not capable of deciding what is good for them and what is not. They are ignorant. Which is why they all must listen to the experts and follow their advice. "Older" generations are no better than "younger" generations and vice versa. As said here before, younger ones are more aware of technology, which brings them just a little bit closer to be able to decide for themselves on technology issues.
Similarly politicians cannot be allowed to decide for anyone because they are not experts in any field; they are only experts at getting elected. Being able to get elected does not mean being able to rule. Getting elected does not imply they know (and will follow through on) what is good for the people and the world.
The layman cannot tell "Snowden" from "Netanyahu", so why ask him for his "opinion"? He has no control whatsoever over anything anyway. Anyone capable and willing to challenge the system will disapper and never be heard from again. That's how bad it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @04:56PM
Seriously?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:06PM
http://hughpickens.com/ [hughpickens.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:26PM
Except for the powers that be here that ban anyone who dares disagree
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:02PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:09PM
He has the correct spirit of cooperation which binds us towards a common goal.
The current people in charge on the other hand apparently want people to shoot them by acting like evil cartoon characters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Thursday April 23 2015, @05:31PM
So how exactly has national security been damaged? Have we experienced an increase in terrorist attacks since Snowden? Blackmail, cyberattacks, or physical attacks from foreign countries? Enemy nations exploiting national secrets to do... things... scary things?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by VitalMoss on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:18PM
I'm sorry, but that's classified.
The Integrity of National Security is at stake.
Also, uh, terrorism and child molesters!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:32PM
He damaged the national security apparatus as well as national insecurity by encouraging more and stronger encryption.
I hope we continue to feel the "damage" for years to come.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @12:00AM
Even if we did experience an increase in terrorist attacks, that would be the fault of terrorists, as they are responsible for their own actions. Snowden merely revealed unconstitutional and unethical surveillance.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:17PM
I would like to know who this "most" is. All but one of the people I know are not "millennials" and think that what Snowden did was a positive thing. My 65-year-old housemate and my 81-year-old father are cases in point. The one person I know who disagrees with me is a conservative Fox News echo chamber inhabitant who has no opinion except what he hears there.
On balance, Snowden's revelations have done far more good than bad, and hopefully will continue to bear positive fruit over the next decade as the truth of exactly what surveillance the U.S. government has been doing to its citizens continues to be revealed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:07PM
Do these numbers represent only the DC metropolitan area?
To get a security clearance in order to get a job with the gov't or with a gov't contractor, you have to be squeeky clean and can't have any record as a dissident.
In northern Virginia, there are lots of such folks who have drunk the kool-aid.
It sounds like those are the folks represented by this "study".
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @04:27PM
There are clearance-holding people that support what Ed Snowden did. While I have since left that environment for unrelated reasons, I was one such clearance-holding, Snowden supporter. I hope that if I had found myself in the same circumstances Ed did, that I would have had the courage to do the same as he.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GDX on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:17PM
As an European more than on time called paranoid because basically I was telling what Snowden revealed before it revealed it, actually most of was revealed by him was already know but at that time it was categorized as a lie, hoax or low quality rumor and him confirmed that those things where real. Anyone what wanted seriously to do anything against the USA was counting the rumors as true, the actually the damage to the security is minimal as only the petty conspirators or criminal ignored the rumors. For this I think that the damage was minimal to the USA security, the blunt of the damage was done to the authorities as it revealed that they were violating laws and the rights of the people and in second to the USA companies as other countries can't not ignore more that the USA tech companies where not trustworthy (Actually I don't consider any company in the world trustworthy).
I think that most of this dislike in USA for Snowden come from two things, people ignoring who he is and really what he did and people that don't want to admit the true of what the USA do to their citizens.
Also what more outraged citizens in other countries is not that they spied their politicians as this is always spectated to some degree is that the spied every Jon Doe, without regard to if the resulting data where really of interest and not doing it to selected persons of interest where the resulting data is going to be more of interest.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:19PM
I say unequivocally that Snowden is a hero. Someday the NSA will be burned to the ground by angry mobs and a giant statue of Snowden will be erected on the site, taking a dump on Eric Clapper's & Keith Alexander's heads.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:31PM
I doubt that. In 2045 we'll have to settle for guerrilla holographic tributes [vanityfair.com] as the authorities probe our minds remotely with alien technology.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rts008 on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:39PM
That was awesome and really cool!
Thanks for sharing that. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:10PM
For folks who didn't click the link yet:
Hovering over your link doesn't make it clear that the hologram is a replacement for a statue that had been put up in the park under cover of darkness by some artists.
Immediately upon discovery, it was commanded by The Establishment that statue be removed.
The 3 anonymous artists are now trying to get their property back.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:36PM
As another Gen-Xer, I don't share your view at all. He did a lot of damage to our foreign intel and he should have to pay for it. He indiscriminately grabbed and dumped shitloads of info unrelated to what he says he did it for. Personally, I find his stated reasons to be contrived and after-the-fact. He can provide no evidence he tried to raise any concerns (what, he can copy a gigabyte's worth of files and he can't copy his Outlook PST file?). If he went to all that tremendous effort to cover his tracks, why didn't he cover his ass? Why is 99% of the stuff he's dumped (that we know about) NOT about domestic surveillance. and how much of that was new info that wasn't already suspected? The only thing we have to go on is his word, and that's not enough when it comes to the damage he's done. I find the domestic stuff revealed is just happenstance and made for a quick cover when his ass got on the line.
You can take your hero worship (I never really understood how cult leaders got such devoted followers, but there is a lot of overlap here with Snowden. People who've never met him, don't know much about him, and don't really know all the details of what's behind the curtain are ready to raise statues to him. That's scary.). Time will have to pass for me to see what he's really done.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @12:09AM
As another Gen-Xer, I don't share your view at all. He did a lot of damage to our foreign intel and he should have to pay for it.
So you're another hardcore authoritarian who thinks that foreigners have no rights. Well, I heavily disagree. We shouldn't be conducting mass surveillance on innocents; period. There should always be standards.
I get it. You don't want the US to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave". You're probably another one of those people who would try to justify unethical surveillance by saying "Well, everyone else is doing it, too!" and then later repeat some nonsense about how the US should be the world leader, failing to see that if it were the 'leader', it would refuse to take part in unethical activities to set an example. For you, there is a country that already has what you want, and it is called North Korea.
He did a lot of damage to our foreign intel and he should have to pay for it.
How can you do damage merely by releasing information? It is those who act on the information in harmful ways that cause damage.
But if I were to assume it's possible, I would say damaging such a corrupt organization is heroic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:16AM
I can't say I agree with your policy of no secrets. It may work if you are a country that is totally dependent upon others, but for any reasonably size country it isn't practical. Plus, it is against fundamental human nature. Countries don't live that way, and people don't live that way. I don't know how you reconcile your private right to privacy and have a country that is compelled to completely open up to other countries.
I don't think it is good national policy for important laws be determined mainly by foreigners. I'm pretty sure that is not the case in whatever country you live, and I am fairly certain you are a pretty vocal critic about US laws being imposed on other countries. For instance, I wouldn't want Russia or China to dictate the kind of laws that I would have to live by. We pretty much have different countries based upon the simple concept of sovereignty.
Your leap to extremes is pretty striking. It is too bad that you have such a low view of others. I don't know if it stems from some deep insecurity or something, but you take a very nasty tone towards people who don't agree with you.
I suppose one doesn't have anything to worry about if they have nothing to hide, right?
Again, the hero worshiping is pretty amazing. The crash will be pretty amazing too. It has to come because he can't live up to the heights to which he is revered. His followers see him as flawless. Everything he says is true. All his actions are pure. "Didn't I do this great deed for you?" The best thing, career wise, for him is to die young. He would be beatified. Many would swear he was knocked off by the CIA, fighting the good fight. A martyr. For us. How quickly and viciously they attack the unbelievers, the ones who suggest that he has flaws.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @03:30AM
I can't say I agree with your policy of no secrets.
You're beginning with a straw man right off the bat? Not a good way to start your comment.
Listen. It is *because* I recognize that the government sometimes has to keep secrets that I understand the value of whistleblowers. When the government does something wrong in secret (unconstitutional, illegal, or outright unethical), we need people like Snowden to tell us. Another problem with mass surveillance is that it makes it easier for the government to discover the whistleblowers before they can inform The People, which allows the government to do as it pleases in secrecy, and effectively kills democracy.
I don't know how you reconcile your private right to privacy and have a country that is compelled to completely open up to other countries.
Again, I didn't say anything about no secrets at all. Furthermore, there's an obvious difference between releasing government (Which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.) information and the government violating individuals' privacy.
I don't think it is good national policy for important laws be determined mainly by foreigners.
Another straw man.
I'm pretty sure that is not the case in whatever country you live
I live in the US. I just want my government to not violate people's rights en masse just because they were 'unfortunate' enough to not be born in the US.
but you take a very nasty tone towards people who don't agree with you.
Of course. If you vote, that affects others. If you advocate the government do X, you are partly responsible when they do. So when you suggest that mass surveillance is a-okay in the case of foreigners, that affects more than just yourself. Don't expect people who care about freedom to just stand idly by and ignore you while you try to get the government to violate others' rights and imprison whistleblowers.
I suppose one doesn't have anything to worry about if they have nothing to hide, right?
Not so.
Again, the hero worshiping is pretty amazing.
The hero smearing is pretty amazing. I simply believe that Snowden did something good, so I praise him and people like him. That is all.
How quickly and viciously they attack the unbelievers
The government and the corporate media seem quite vicious with its smear campaign against Snowden and other whistleblowers, which also conveniently distracts from the fact that they're violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental liberties.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday April 24 2015, @04:32PM
Who said anything about foreigners creating laws? Reading through this thread, this seems to be the first comment that mentions that.
The issue is simply whether or not foreigners have a right to privacy. The NSA alleges that they don't, and that their spying is legal because they claim to target communications with foreigners. Firstly, that's provably false -- Snowden showed they collect lots of intel on US citizens. And the guys who built the surveillance tools have stated in interviews that *they* wanted to install them at the landing points of undersea cables and other "borders" -- their superiors decided to tap the entire internet backbone instead. The only possible reason for that is if they fully intended to target US citizens and domestic traffic -- a quite clear violation of the US Constitution.
But even if they WERE only targeting foreigners, where's the constitutional amendment that states that the constitutional rights only apply to US citizens? Where in the document does it say that? It doesn't. There ARE a few places where the constitution explicitly refers to citizens, but when it's discussing the rights to be free from government intrusion, they use the word "people". If they had meant citizens, they certainly would have said it. Our Founding Fathers weren't nearly as stupid as so many people apparently assume they were.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 24 2015, @03:56AM
some information needs to remain secret, at least for a little while. while i was deployed in Afghanistan, if the Taliban even knew which routes we'd be taking, they could and would set up bombs along our routes. the releasing of information can definitely cause damage, and handwaving it away with some bullshit like "only those who act on it cause damage!" is retarded because they're only able to act on it because its available. now obviously not everything should remain secret forever, but some reasonable limits are required to prevent unnecessary deaths and such. how long secret information should remain secret is for somebody else to decide, but secret information should remain secret at least while its an active program against legitimate "targets" (for lack of a better word, and citizens are never valid targets; info on illegal / unconstitutional programs should not be allowed to remain secret).
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 24 2015, @04:09AM
some information needs to remain secret
I don't see releasing the information itself as damaging. However, I see keeping it secret as a way to prevent others from being able to take harmful actions. So while the leaker is not doing the damage, keeping information secret can be smart. See my reply to the other person.
is retarded because they're only able to act on it because its available.
And it is the act that is harmful, regardless of why they are able to act.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday April 24 2015, @04:36PM
Soo...by your logic, the guys who publish the phone book ought to be arrested if a criminal uses the white pages to look up my home address, right? And Zuckerberg ought to be arrested if someone uses my Facebook status posts to decide they can rob my house because I'm on vacation?
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Friday April 24 2015, @01:48AM
As a member of one of the nations your country calls an ally, why should I have to be subjected to the intrusive snooping regime that was implemented by the security pantomine agencies that have 3 letter acronyms?
If we treated you with the same level of respect, and one of ours blew the whistle, you would be whinging, bitching and moaning about your loss of freedoms, and demanding your government do something about it. Given your rhetoric, that "something" you are demanding would likely include cruise missiles, drone strikes, black bag renditions, or assassinations of whoever in my country that signed off on the orders.
You claim to be a world leader, and leaders, by their very nature, lead by example. The example that was set by your nation is piss poor, and has been roundly criticised by those with an inkling of intelligence, and rational thought. Only those who drank the koolaid of Faux News say otherwise.
> "The only thing we have to go on is his word, and that's not enough when it comes to the damage he's done. I find the domestic stuff revealed is just happenstance and made for a quick cover when his ass got on the line."
The only thing we have to go on that he "has destroyed US security" is the word of those who have a vested interest in maintaining their iron grip on their positions of power. You believe their side of the story, yet can't afford Snowden the same courtesy?
if you could actually construct a logical argument without being a complete hypocrite, then perhaps your argument could be taken seriously. Seeing you can't, then your argument will be flushed down the same recetpicle as Bill O'Reilly's.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:35AM
This statement is just stupid. Really stupid. You know, you try to have a discussion about this, and you just can't. The hate is pretty strong. The moral certitude is pretty strong. I would be able to have a more rational discussion if I found an evangelical christian web site and posted how I think a woman should be able to have an abortion.
And no, you can't just take St. Snowden's word in as much as you don't drop a case against a murder suspect simply because he says he didn't do it. First, 99% of the stuff he grabbed had nothing to do with domestic surveillance, but he took it, then gave it away. Then he ran to China. Then to Russia. Then he says it is all about the domestic stuff, and he tried, oh how he tried! to raise his concerns, but he somehow can't produce any proof of that. He went to all that trouble to use tor and encryption and all that, and he couldn't forward a single email to himself. He can't produce anything to back up anything he says. And you criticize my skepticism? Here's a news flash: you aren't as worldly and smart as you think you are. My arguments at least have substance that needs to be refuted; yours is simply attacks on my character. You ought to be in politics because you wallow in and sling the shit with the best of them.
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Friday April 24 2015, @06:57AM
Given what happened to Chelsea Manning, do you blame him for running after he blew the whistle? The establishment has already shown that it is willing to rape the freedoms of mere peons who show them up as wrong-doers, yet the higher echelons (Petraeus) get a mere slap on the wrist for giving classified information away just so he can continue to get his dick wet.
My "attacks" on you were not attacks, they were role reversals, combined with the typical rhetoric of the flag-waving "Snowden is a traitor" crowd that you seem to be associating yourself with. You know, a role revesal where one of your supposed allies is treating everyone in your country as an enemy, performing a dragnet on all communications, infringing upon the righths of sovereign nations and their inhabitants.
The data released thus far by foreign, independant (from the US) journalists, has shown that whilst a lot of their activity was done against foreign powers, it also included violations of your own constitution, against the general public of your own nation. These foreign journalists had a public interest to let the rest of the world know that their supposed allies were not honoring the treaties that had been signed between the nation states. There are still troves of information yet to be released, much of which will no doubt detail more violations against citizens of the US. Just because they are taking the approach that other countries exist outside the US (which your politicians, and citizens tend to forget about), does not mean that only 1% of the TOTAL information only applies to your homeland.
The fact you do not seem to recognise the fact that what your government has done to everyone in the world, including you, is wrong, just goes to show how much you have drunk the home made kool aid.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:36PM
KRC Research on behalf of the ACLU conducts a survey that presents results that are totally in line with their core believes. Can anyone really be surprised?
This shouldn't really be all that strange or amazing, the youth-adult differences have been known for quite some time and it spans many different subjects and doesn't really have any set relation to Snowden. Young people tend to be more liberal and as they grow older they become less liberal, or if you like more conservative. The interesting thing here, and normally, is, trying, to figure out if people will change or not. When I read this it almost seems like as if the authors believe that super-liberal youth will automatically become super-liberal adults in large society changing numbers, but they offer no evidence of this being the case at all except wishful thinking and if it was the case and did happen then that would be the news. The explanation for this is probably that if it isn't the case then there won't really be much change, which will not be good for the ACLU. If they instead follow the more traditional path of becoming more conservative as they grow older, get families, a house, a job etc etc then nothing will really change or changes will be minor. The youth gets trained by the old and become new versions of the old as our collective knowledge of reality is handed down. There won't be any total reversal of the existing surveillance society of today they seem to want to indicate or believe over at the ACLU.
I'm sure if one wanted one could attack the survey-method and their conclusions more in-depth but there would be little point, they are trying to quantify emotions or feelings and that just never really ends well.
I don't really believe there is or will be a large Snowden-effect on society, it will be minor at best and in the long term it won't really amount to any total reversals of the current path towards the/a surveillance society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @05:58AM
It's a bit late to characterise millennials as "youth" at this point. They are rapidly approaching middle age.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fatuous looser on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:06PM
Straw man: A fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument. (From dictionary.com)
This was prophesied & oh-so-predictable twenty months ago when the revelations of NSA malfeasance surfaced: The messenger will be incessantly portrayed as the bad guy. TFA posits that ol' Joe Sixpack doesn't care much for Mr. Snowden.
Dragnet surveillance of phone record "metadata" is a second misdirection at play here. We're supposed to argue over that endlessly. Meanwhile the most egregious ongoing perfidy involves splitters on backbone fatpipes that siphon out the juicy photonic bits & copy them to Bluffdale. ("Collect it all.") Enabled by Section 702 of the laughably entitled "PATRIOT" Act.
Meanwhile back at the ranch
Joe Sixpack don't know jack
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:41PM
First, 56% isn't like it is some kind of mandate, so let's not all get too excited about the generational thing.
Now THAT'S a load of bullshit. They are a generation that cares less than any other about privacy and personal information. They flock to MySpace, Facebook, and whatever will come next, and fall over themselves putting their life out there all in the open. They tacitly have accepted as a fact that there is no privacy, or there is something wrong with you if you want to keep your personal life private.
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:44PM
that people like the status quo.
"Terrorists bad; government good"
Snowden showed people that governments can be bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance [wikipedia.org]
"My brain hurts, and it's all his fault. Snowden is bad, lock him up."
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:07PM
As a Gen X'r my personal opinion is that Snowden is a Hero.
I've been telling everyone for years about what the government has been doing to the American citizens and their rights. Most common responses I heard were "It can't really be that bad" or "your just being paranoid". Snowden has brought the subject into the general public's consciousness, its on CNN and other news sources. Even Fox painting Snowden as a traitor is good. Because it means people are talking about it, and no mater their view of Snowden they now know that they are being spied on by their own government.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:39AM
Sacred Cow Alert!!! Danger Ahead!
Ahhhhh, just feel the righteousness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @12:36PM
I was born long before the Wall fell over, can you please stop bundling me with the millennial suckadickers?
Thank you shithead.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday April 24 2015, @04:42PM
I am a baby boomer, born in 1946 in the Netherlands, and by now I'm getting to be a old man in Canada. I came to Canada in 1952, and grew up here. I demonstrated for nuclear disarmament (but not unilateral). I demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, which I'm glad Canada never participated in, despite USA government pressure.
In the 80's, within my university computer science department, I campaigned for the faculty to get on the international email networks and usenet that were spreading, to the bafflement of those who couldn't see the point.
I think Snowden is a hero.
I think the most important political issue for this century is for the people to use governments to control the corporations, and for the corporations to be kicked out of government.
I sympathise more with the millennials than with the current crop of regressive politicians that are running my country.
And I sign my own real name.
-- hendrik