Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the who's-the-good-guy dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:19PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:19PM (#174402) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:31PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:31PM (#174407) Journal

    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

      by rts008 (3001) on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:39PM (#174448)

      That was awesome and really cool!

      Thanks for sharing that. :-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:10PM (#174458)

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:36PM (#174462)

    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

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday April 24 2015, @12:09AM (#174484)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:16AM (#174507)

        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.

        So you're another hardcore authoritarian who thinks that foreigners have no rights.

        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.

        How can you do damage merely by releasing information?

        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

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday April 24 2015, @03:30AM (#174517)

          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

          by urza9814 (3954) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:32PM (#174712) Journal

          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.

          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

        by tathra (3367) on Friday April 24 2015, @03:56AM (#174533)

        How can you do damage merely by releasing information?

        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

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:09AM (#174538)

          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

          by urza9814 (3954) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:36PM (#174714) Journal

          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

      by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Friday April 24 2015, @01:48AM (#174504)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @02:35AM (#174510)

        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.

        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

          by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Friday April 24 2015, @06:57AM (#174562)

          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.