White House spokeswoman and Presidential Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco issued a response to the petition that Edward Snowden receive immunity from any laws he may have broken and be allowed to return to the USA as a free man. Her statement reasserted the Administration's position that Snowden is a criminal, running away from the consequences of his actions and should return to the USA to stand trial (and inevitably serve out the rest of his life in solitary confinement).
The full text of the response:
Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here's what she had to say:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, "We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require."
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:26AM
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
There is zero evidence or reason to think that it was "dangerous" unless you think that simple democracy is dangerous, or you think that the government should be able to violate the constitution as it pleases. On the contrary, releasing the information to The People was the only correct decision; we have a right to know when the government is doing unethical and/or illegal things. That would be true even if it was "dangerous" to leak that information.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
He's seeking shelter from one authoritarian regime in another authoritarian regime that's not currently angry with him. If he were to "accept the consequences of his actions", he would be treated as a hero and would not go to prison at all. But he would not have a fairy trial in the first place; the government would make certain of that. I don't think Snowden is suicidal or masochistic, so it would be unwise to come back at this point.
We live in a dangerous world.
And we always have. The free and brave thing to do would be to accept that we live in a dangerous world rather than violating human rights and the constitution in order to (supposedly) increase safety. Filthy cowards desire safety above all else.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:05AM
The security state isn't going away. We have nuclear weapons, eternal enemies, insecure by design Internet, insecure by nature software, and emerging threats from non-state actors (the other NSA). The danger has increased, and the paranoia of govt and law enforcement has increased faster.
The government conducted illegal surveillance, silenced several internal whistleblowers, and it complains that Snowden wasn't constructive. Even in the case of supposedly lawful foreign surveillance, the public has a right to know and a right not to spend tax money on programs that were going to damage our credibility once they came to light. Theoretically this could be expressed through our elected officials, but many of them were not fully aware of the implications of the surveillance programs they approved, including secret legal interpretations by the executive. Misinformation and outright lies have been trotted out regularly in order to discredit Snowden. Of course, "authorized leaks" and "anonymous officials" are still used to push the agenda of the week. Must crush ISIS.
The classified budget of the NSA is $10 billion or more. Would cutting that to $2 billion improve or damage national security?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:55AM
Everyone who agrees that "Snowden is a hero" probably just got their names added to several lists-- the list of people who are ineligible for secret clearances, the list of suspected potential terrorists, the "no-fly" list, and, heck if you also think Bradley/Chelsea Manning is a hero, the sex offender list and the military's secret list of potential soldiers who are not to be trusted because they are sexually confused or homosexual.
Presumably spy agencies and the military have rather similar attitudes to many things. They have this lamentable tendency to view disagreement as possibly treasonous. The gun turret explosion on the Battleship Iowa back in '89 is most revealing of military attitudes and their completely unwarranted and unfair suspicion of pretty much every outsider, everyone who isn't "America F Yeah!" The navy concocted this ludicrous story that the Iowa was sabotaged by a homosexual sailor acting out his suicidal sexual frustration over a relationship that ended badly. Why did they try to run with such an implausible story, and why choose that particular one? Why couldn't a hetero sailor get just as sexually frustrated and commit suicide? Why couldn't any sailor go postal out of frustration over harsh and unfair discipline, and not sexual denial? Was it because the investigators were trying to play to military prejudices, hoping thereby to get the rest of the military to accept the story regardless of what the general public thought? As it turned out, they were using experimental powder that had already been shown to be unsafe, but the high-ranking officer pushing the powder wanted it to succeed and was all too willing to suppress and ignore contrary findings.
Another bad time to act out was during the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover. There was also McCarthyism, with the harassment of any Hollywood talent who dared question the stifling norms of the 1950s America.
I don't think things have changed much.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mhajicek on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:04AM
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” - CIA director William Casey, February 1981
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 5, Funny) by dyingtolive on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:19AM
Crap. I don't know whether to believe that or not.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:19AM
William Casey, died on a canoeing trip where he was wearing a three-piece suite. Totally credible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:16PM
How in hell did he get a "suite" into a canoe? Either English is not your first language, OR, you don't know how to spell, OR, Casey was one hell of a man to get that canoe out into deep water while carrying an entire suite.
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Wednesday July 29 2015, @08:44PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @08:22AM
DUH!
they have to pass the bills to find out what's in them!
(Score: 1, Troll) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:35AM
Is it your opinion that the USA shouldn't spy on foreign nations, or is it your opinion that none of the stuff leaked
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog [wikipedia.org] for an awe-inspiring list) was for targeting foreign nations?
Either is crazy, and I see no other even half-logical way to reach your conclusion.
Really, take a look at that list. Leaking that list is obviously devastating. The loss of information will hurt the USA for many decades. Future presidents will make more mistakes due to the loss of information.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:50AM
Future presidents will make more mistakes due to the loss of information.
After the presidency of George W. Bush, I really do not think this is possible.
(Score: 1, Troll) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:19AM
He couldn't spy as well as Obama could. Taking Bush at his word (yeah, I know...) we see that he actually started a war because he was misinformed. Had the spying been better, the 2nd war in Iraq might have been avoided.
With the loss of capability, we're headed back to the Bush level of cluelessness. Oh joy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @08:24AM
...they would have been able to at least plant some WMD's to give the spin some credibility
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:22PM
Where do they find you guys? Did the government run a recruiting event at Bob Jones University? Or were you vat-grown in secret labs beneath Ft. Mead and decanted to undertake this social media mission?
This honestly takes the cake for the greatest amount of drivel I've yet seen on our beloved Soylent. Bush spied less well than Obama? Who the hell do you think started the Total Information Awareness program, Obama 8 years before he was elected President?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:26PM
Bob Jones University would kick me off campus mighty fast. I'd probably reach escape velocity.
It probably hasn't occurred to you, but there exist conservatives who are not Bible-thumping types driving pickups with confederate flags. It's possible to be a reality-based thinker with conservative values. The fact that many conservatives are completely illogical does not imply that liberal values are logical.
Bush evidently did spy pretty well by the end of his second term, getting Obama off to a great start. Obama's last couple years will be lousy. The next person will have trouble too. It doesn't matter if they have a "D" or "R" after their name. This stuff is done by government workers and contractors who are essentially nameless and hidden, many working for low pay. These are people who love their country and really want their country to win. It's called patriotism, something sorely lacking in most of the tech industry. Patriotism is about more than just constitutional amendments 1 and 4.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:14AM
These are people who love their country and really want their country to win.
It sounds like they're more in love with the idea of an authoritarian regime of their own making.
It's called patriotism
Patriotism is wanting your country to do better, and defending the principles of freedom. You're certainly not a patriot if you advocating violating or violate the highest law of the land and destroy people's freedoms in the name of safety.
something sorely lacking in most of the tech industry.
Good. That fake "patriotism" isn't desirable.
Patriotism is about more than just constitutional amendments 1 and 4.
Right. You have to follow the rest of the constitution, too. Sorry, government.
(Score: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @04:36AM
Do you really think they intended to violate the constitution?
They have a bias, and so do you. These biases lead to opposite conclusions. So far the courts have mostly sided with you, so in that sense you got things right, but that doesn't mean that the other side was purposely violating the constitution.
Most likely they were blinded to the situation by needing to get things done and by being in an echo chamber very different from the one here at soylentnews.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 30 2015, @03:13PM
Do you really think they intended to violate the constitution?
I think they don't give a shit. Their intentions don't matter, however; they're treacherous scum.
They have a bias, and so do you.
And their biases lead to egregious violations of our fundamental liberties, ethics, and the highest law of the land.
There are too many obvious constitutional violations for them to not realize this. I don't buy this apologist nonsense one bit, and even if they didn't realize what they were doing, they still deserve to be in prison.
So far the courts have mostly sided with you, so in that sense you got things right
I would be correct even if the courts didn't side with me. To say otherwise leads to a paradox. Does reality change once the courts make a ruling? Because courts have overruled previous court decisions in the past. Were both rulings correct, or did reality change in that time? The notion that the courts are always right is just a legal fiction at best, because at the end of the day you probably have to have someone with a bit of power who people listen to. But when the courts get it wrong, and they have and they will continue to do so, The People have to fix the situation.
Most likely they were blinded to the situation by needing to get things done and by being in an echo chamber very different from the one here at soylentnews.
I like how you're comparing the "biases" as if they're anything alike.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 30 2015, @09:34AM
Those are called, "Libertarians," nowadays. And (the hint is in the name) they really hold fast to the Constitution and like freedom. They do not approve of violating it. The rest are Know-nothings [wikipedia.org]. (Heck, even their anti-Catholicism has not gone, as you can see on the front page of Drudge today, which is asking if the Pope is the Anti-Christ.)
You cannot claim to defend the Constitution and turn around and wipe your ass with it.
That's a bullshit false choice. It's the same dreck fascists always roll out to shout down free men. We all remember that telling Goering quote, "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Implying that those who oppose authority are cowards or want their country to lose is an argument made by those with no honor.
It truly astonishes me how so many can completely invert very clear language and intentions to believe the opposite thing. Jesus said, "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you." It does not mean, "Run out and kill Muslims." But that's exactly what conservatives tell themselves Jesus meant. The United States has multiple laws and signed many treaties against torture and has prosecuted torturers as War Criminals, which is a long precedence of staunch opposition to torture, enshrined in American law. But what do conservatives think that means? Hey, let's go out and torture people! It's not torture when America is the one torturing people...
It's almost as though American conservatives did capture Mengele after the fall of the Third Reich and agreed to let him go on to exile in South America if he first perfected the technique of performing a rectal-cranial inversion on their rank-and-file.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @04:30PM
You can be socially conservative while being a non-believer.
Jesus never existed, and therefore couldn't spew liberal nonsense. Run out and kill Muslims.
We can see liberal values destroying themselves in France just this past week. A lady was sunning herself in the park. A group of Muslims attacked her for being in a bikini. You liberals want to let everybody in, and then those people turn society conservative in a very fucked up way.
Self-preservation requires a bit of xenophobia. Someday we'll be living under Sharia because of people like you.
This is just victor's justice. We "prosecute" because that is the only way a democracy can get liberal voters on board with what possibly needs to be done. A more honest approach would either skip the sham trial (go straight to execution) or make it non-sham by allowing "orders that were lawful at the time" as a defense.
Supporting a sham trial is pretty vile. It's worse than just lining people up and shooting them.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:11PM
Had the spying been better, they would have used it to violate more people's rights, and there still would've been an Iraq war, because Bush and his buddies are all sociopathic, lying war criminals.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:39PM
> we see that he actually started a war because he was misinformed.
That's a misleading characterization.
Yes, the best available intelligence on Iraq's WMD program suggested that they did have WMDs. But the expiration date on that intelligence was 5 years past. Bush and his collaborators choose to discount that the intelligence was well-known to be stale because it confirmed their biases. That's not a failure of intelligence, that's a failure of judgment.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:17AM
One thing I don't see often mentioned is the fact that, even if they did have WMDs, so fucking what? Iraq was a sovereign country. The US had and has WMDs, and was in fact the only country that actually used atomic bombs during warfare, and used them to murder countless innocents. Maybe the world should invade the US.
The justification seems to be that they might use the WMDs they supposedly had in some evil way at some unspecified point in the future, so we have to engage in preemptive warfare. That's unethical to the highest degree.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday July 30 2015, @12:33AM
He couldn't spy as well as Obama could. Taking Bush at his word (yeah, I know...) we see that he actually started a war because he was misinformed.
You can't take him at his word. The man lied to everyone, and maybe even himself, to justify a war he wanted to start and/or finish (start or finish depends how you frame it, I guess). What Bush wanted from "spying" was not reality but justification of his predetermined stance. Things that were inconvenient were thrown out. Even if there was perfect spying on Hussein (you know, it was pretty good considering almost continual inspections!!), it would have been completely ignored.
(Score: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @03:58AM
Seeing what you want to see is a pretty typical human failure. Probably all of us do that, all the while steadfastly denying it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 30 2015, @03:26PM
Stupidity is not a sufficient explanation for the levels of corruption we see in government. Power corrupts, and these sociopathic pieces of garbage are irredeemably corrupt.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:01AM
The information was always going to become public. Snowden sped up that process. Keep that in mind for the following.
The spying that we are doing on other nations' telecommunications is beyond the scale of any previous foreign surveillance. It has hurt our reputation overseas (although some EU heads of state and a certain Brazilian would like to move past it). The surveillance is not nearly as valuable in stopping terrorist attacks or for diplomatic purposes as believed. The products in that TAO catalog and NSA's muddling in standards processes weaken the security of targets and non-targets. Buying and exploiting zero-days rather than fixing them hurts everyone's security, just as supporting and paying Hacking Team hurts everyone's security.
Choices were made for the American people to spend billions of dollars on these programs. The results: weakened security for everyone, further mistrust and hate of America abroad, potential balkanization of the Internet, economic harm to U.S. tech and cloud companies. Spying on your allied governments is cute, spying on everyone on the planet is counterproductive.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:18PM
How does all that matter? When you spy a criminal committing criminal activities, you should keep some or most of his activities secret? Huh, WUT?!?!?!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:00PM
Nothing illogical there. Mass surveillance is always unethical, because it will always capture the data of countless innocent people who are not suspected of anything. Foreigners have rights too; I know that may come as a surprise for you. If we have to spy on a foreigner, there should be evidence that they're doing something wrong, or they should be an enemy country.
Leaking that list is obviously devastating.
Not only have you not shown that, but even if it was, freedom would still be more important than safety. The ends don't justify the means. And no, it doesn't matter how many other countries also spy on foreigners; if we're the world's leader (as our politicians like to say), we should set an example.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday July 30 2015, @12:10AM
One of the only reasons why we don't see far, far, far more political fallout in our clearly retarded foreign policy is that we offer our victim's governments a share in our spoils, and an offer to share in future spoils. In other words, there won't be an enemy country created out of these actions, as those countries are all too happy to become enemies to their own people as well. One set of thieves complaining to the other, not about the ethics of the theft, but the acquisition and division of their illicit gains.
That to me is one of the more depressing realities of our time; There are no governments above corruption, above monied interests, and above wholly abusing their own peoples. All of the grand ideals and American ideology pushed on me in my youth in school were nothing more than a tragic and pathetic lies. I used to believe that I lived in a world governed by the U.S Constitution and the ideals it so passionately expressed, but that's just a beautiful dream and illusion in a world where my politicians respect it about as much as toilet paper. In all practicality, the only differences are in the standards of living, the degree to which the abuse is occurring, and the odds that you will be next. Functionally, my freedom is the same in the United States that it is in Burma. In the US however, my standards of living are just higher, and the odds I become hanged by law enforcement in jail like Sandra Blank are more comfortably low. Make no mistake however, law enforcement in the U.S and Burma are just as likely to abuse you, harm you, and even kill you. They have an equal amount of respect for their fellow citizens, human rights, etc. I can no longer come to any other conclusion when multiple times per month I see another American like John Crawford III, Sandra Blank, Angela Williams, Kelly Thomas, etc. being killed by police in egregious situations that clearly had police acting in a rogue fashion no better than the children in the Lord of the Flies.
When you watch the tapes of those officers brutally murdering Kelly Thomas, it looks just like a scene playing out in Hell. Literally. Those men were nothing but excited angry beasts, seemingly taking joy in the brutality of beating a homeless man they found objectionable, and amazingly, to this day they claim was an imminent threat toward their lives. Anybody watching the video sees a mentally ill man screaming out in pain and confusion.... for his daddy. Our fellow citizen, beaten to death cruelly, crying out for mercy and his parent. Hyperbole or not, I just cannot see anything different between that and the acts of brutality we condemn on a regular basis in 3rd world countries. The hypocrisy is astounding when we treat these officers as any different than the base animals running around in ISIS decapitating people.
It used to be that we held governments up the standard of ONLY committing ethical acts, of ONLY being comprised of our best, brightest, and most honorable. Now it's comprised of slick politicians accepting payments from the highest bidder , to enact laws written by sociopathic MBAs drinking the economic Kool-aid from on high.
Ahhhh, the end days of Rome. Exciting times.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:22AM
It used to be that we held governments up the standard of ONLY committing ethical acts, of ONLY being comprised of our best, brightest, and most honorable.
Those times never existed. We had slavery, had Jim Crow laws, wouldn't allow women to vote, created Japanese internment camps, committed genocide against the Native Americans, etc. When was the US government ever not corrupt in numerous ways? Other governments had different issues, but they were still corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:52AM
The Alamo was an example of 'the people' taking action when the government refused to. (Busy bickering over slave or free state as the Free Texas movement was preparing its last stand against Mexico.) The lesson learned (as the Snowden case also shows) is that the actions of the few will often be the catalyst needed to change or force the government into action, but the 'heroes', good or bad, WILL be crushed within the gears of bureaucracy, whether directly or indirectly.
Remember the Alamo, remember that they died so a bunch of aloof statemen could bicker about matters that should have been less pressing than defending a potential ally.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:40PM
> But he would not have a fairy trial in the first place; the government would make certain of that
Fairy trial in the sense that a fair trial would be a fantasy, yes. But no, he can't get a fair trial, they wouldn't even need to "make certain" of that as that implies they'd need to do something special. From Bruce Schneier's "Data and Goliath":
"Intelligence-related whistleblowing is not a legal defense in the US; the Espionage Act prohibits the defendant from explaining why he leaked classified information. Daniel Ellsberg, the first person prosecuted under the law, in 1971, was barred from explaining his actions in court. Former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake, an NSA whistleblower who was prosecuted in 2011, was forbidden to say the words 'whistleblowing' and 'overclassification' in his trial. Chelsea Manning was prohibited from using a similar defense."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:29AM
The good thing about the way they are treating Snowden is that they are making sure that all the people who have access to the same kind of information he had access to will much sooner just take it and sell it to a foreign power rather than try to protect the freedom and democracy of their fellow Americans. The potential punishment is the same either way, but it's much more profitable to be an actual spy selling secrets, if you don't get caught.
Oh, wait, is that a good thing? Hmm.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:40AM
I don't think the treatment of whistleblowers will increase the amount of spies selling secrets. There will always be a few people that grab at the chance to get side income. But the anti-whistleblowing climate (yes, even against whistleblowers that do not leak) will discourage more people from following his example. "Insider threat" programs are in high gear now. That's a buzzphrase that isn't going away anytime soon. We've had a bit of discussion [soylentnews.org] about that, although in the face of the Office of Personnel Management hack it all seems like a joke.
More here:
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2015/06/insider-2015-q2/ [fas.org]
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2015/01/insider-threat-lags/ [fas.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:10PM
Ninety-nine percent of what Snowden took and released is unrelated to what he says his motives were. He did a bulk grab and dump, then after the fact tried to claim it was all out of a sense of duty. Bullshit. Why didn't he take only relevant information? If he was worried about freedom and democracy for Americans, he wouldn't have sold them out on their foreign intelligence. He did as much, or more, damage to their security than he did for their freedom and democracy.
I hope you get to see this response because one is not allowed to express contrary opinions in this echo chamber. It's like being in Moscow and speaking out against the Soviet regime during the Cold War, the swiftness of the down-modding from the same people who proclaim superiority of diversity of opinion over the green site is impressive.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:25AM
Why didn't he take only relevant information?
Maybe you think that foreigners have no rights and that only the domestic spying was "relevant", but just be aware that not everyone hates freedom quite as much as you. There should be serious oversight and standards when conducting foreign surveillance as well, which necessarily does not allow for mass surveillance.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:31AM
"The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home."
The government derives all of its power from the constitution. It has *zero* authority to ignore it. The only "balance" is for the government to completely obey the constitution. Otherwise, they are acting as treacherous thugs who have no legitimate authority.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:06AM
+1 Dangerous Truth
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:53AM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:16PM
He greatly supported his foreign enemies with his blind dump. He broke his oath big time. Let some dude steal your life savings, throw $100 of it to an orphanage, and you'd want to knight him for supporting the downtrodden. You're just like those Red State Republicans who vigorously support the Congressmen and Senators who consistently vote against your interests because they say things you like to hear. Snowden didn't reveal much that was new, only confirmed what most thought was going on, but celebrate that revelation and ignore how he fucked over your national security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:12PM
The big reveal was that what was suspected to happen suddenly became confirmed to be happening. That's not inconsiderable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @07:39PM
We had evidence in around 2006, but it just wasn't as detailed.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:16PM
Jesus, amen!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:25PM
Spot Fucking On. Thank you for pointing out what the oath really is. No one swears an oath to protect and defend the administration, or to protect and defend Washington, or to protect and defend the NSA. It's the CONSTITUTION that we all swore to defend.
http://oathkeepers.org/ [oathkeepers.org]
Salutes, to all oathkeepers, everywhere. And, Salutes to Edward Snowden.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:00AM
Whenever a Snowdon story comes out, there is only one opinion that is politically correct around here. This is where linear moderation fails us. It's clear that people from the SF Bay Area and even Europe can trivially outvote people from places like Alabama, Virginia, Texas, and Nevada.
This kills discussion. Even if you do agree with the majority, you should realize that your peers are killing discussion by voting the minority down to -1. You are being denied the chance to see well-thought-out opinions that would be interesting to you and would give you something to ponder.
As far as I can tell, the closest thing to a fix for this problem is non-linear moderation. Upmods and downmods need to be tracked separately, passed through different functions such that upmods grow faster than downmods, then subtracted to get the final score. It could be up*up-down for example. It could be up-sqrt(down) or up*up*up-down*down or similar.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:13AM
Who the hell is Snowdon? Can the group you get your groupthink from spell his name correctly?
It's true that Snowden stories are circlejerks. But that's not our fault. We understand that the Constitution was violated, illegal and secret surveillance has been conducted on Americans and everyone else, and that the full extent of NSA/GCHQ/FBI surveillance capabilities is still unknown.
Make a good and reasoned anti-Snowden post, and someone will upmod you for it. The Disagree mod also helps if it's used, since it doesn't lower score. Finally, as spammy ACs have liked to remind us, you can browse at -1, as I do.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:16AM
While I think that yes, the majority of users here have a very similar opinion on Snowden, I have many times seen well written counter-arguments written and modded up.
Keep in mind that when the majority of people share a similar opinion in a place like this, generally the comments that go against the grain are actually often trolls or flamebait. I don't have any problem with those getting down-voted.
I am however, not a huge fan of the "-1 Disagree" mod. Just because we disagree with it, doesn't mean that the next person will - though I guess with everyone having mod points, they can mod it back up again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:21AM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:22AM
There is a +0 Disagree mod, which you should use when you want to burn a mod point to express you disagree with a post, without resorting to incorrect Flamebait/Troll/Offtopic mod.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:03AM
There is also a -0 Disagree mod, which you should use when you want to burn a mod point to express you disagree with a post, without resorting to incorrect Flamebait/Troll/Offtopic mod. [Shamelessly plagiarized from takyon, with only an added adverb and a change of polarity.]
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:06AM
±0 Funny
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:16AM
But Funny is +1, am I right? Well played, sir/madame!
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:24PM
IIRC, Funny is adds to the comment score, but not to the karma.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 31 2015, @07:00PM
Nah, that's over on the other site. You get karma too here. We like funny people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:57AM
Sure about that? Maybe those comments are simply outside your current Overton window. Perhaps your Overton window will move, and years from now you will be of a different opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:58PM
Yes, thanks for that, Herr Goebbels. If only propaganda were better run to instill the proper obedience to authority in the minds of the public, eh? The problem must be that people upset by the government's crimes that Snowden exposed simply haven't been taught well enough to doublethink their way to happiness and complacency.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:50PM
You may have Fluffeh, but I have certainly not. In my world there is no positive spin that can be put on the vast criminal conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and undermine the very pillars of our freedom, democracy, and society that the United States government has become. Any POS I see cheering for the NSA's crimes I will downmod and I will do it to their face, because it's the least I can do to those who ought to be stripped of their citizenship (American, British, whatever) and sent to live in North Korea where the contempt for freedom and worship of obedience to authority is as absolute as their own. They have no business profaning our company with their bootlicking gibberish.
Is that clear enough for the NSA apologists out there, or should I tell them what I really think?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:05PM
Ah Lordy-Lordy and Hallelujah! For you walk on the RIGHT and TRUE path!! Let us eliminate the INFIDELS who think otherwise!!!
I'm with you brother! For ours is the ONE and ONLY way! For WE know what is right.
Let's meet at the Creationism Museum. When we're done, maybe we can go "take care" of some of them abortion doctors too. Fuck those who say there are shades of grey for we know it is a black-and-white world. Fuck those 200-plus years of Constitutional Law, for WE KNOW THE LAW. We'll shit on "Joe Sixpack" when it comes to computers, but we'll fucking loudly and proudly proclaim our "Joe Sixpack" knowledge of law and jurisprudence.
Yeah, there's no fucking echo chamber and mod abuse going on here. Shouting down contrary opinions is the main argumentative step of the self-righteous asshole.
Also, your "ends justify the means" mob attitude is a little frightening as well. Why are you against drone attacks that take out terrorist leaders? Doesn't that justify the collateral damage of civilian deaths just like how all that foreign intel Snowden dumped is just collateral damage to the domestic spying stuff? It couldn't be related to YOUR means vs other people's means could it?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 31 2015, @06:59PM
And I'll do the opposite. That's why everyone gets mod points every day, to correct blatant abuses like you're talking about performing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:40AM
It's clear that people from the SF Bay Area and even Europe can trivially outvote people from places like Alabama, Virginia, Texas, and Nevada.
You mean, the states of the United States with the worst educational systems, highest rates of gun hoarding and waco religions do not get an equal hearing? You know, if there were actually more of these people, and they were smart enough, they could figure out a way to not be out-voted so consistently by the minority of educated elites! Is so easy, even an American Snipper could figure it out!
(And yes, this is one of "those" submissions, designed to stir the hornet's nest. At least Dice is cashing out. )
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:50AM
... they could figure out a way to not be out-voted so consistently by the minority of educated elites! Is so easy, even an American Snipper could figure it out!
The timing of a typo in the middle of a comment is sometimes just gold... :)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:54AM
And what makes you think it is a typo? Some of the most accurate tailors in the US military hale from Texas! (And yes, that one is intentional as well. I have been recently informed that it is our mistakes that makes SoylentNews the wonderful place it is.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pogostix on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:08AM
I browse at -1 always. I'm not seeing any downmodded legit discussion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:52AM
If you have "well-thought-out opinions that would be interesting to [me] and would give [me] something to ponder." I'm still waiting. Seriously. Instead of being angry about believing you will be downmodded for posting something good, post it and find out. Scientific method and all that.
(Score: 2) by albert on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:14AM
Here you go:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=8660&cid=215255 [soylentnews.org]
It didn't take long for that to get "Troll". I provided a relevant link to a reputable site. I explained the problem. No, I didn't walk on eggshells to be polite, but pointing out major problems with the parent poster's thinking isn't the same as being a troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:57AM
I agree. Frequently things are labelled as troll when they are not. Impoliteness of a message with valid reasoning is as good as a polite one, just not as readily persuasive. It certainly does not warrant a -1 anything let alone troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:35AM
Being an obtuse idiot does merit a troll rating. You will have one until you prove yourself capable of reasoned argument, instead of Faux News talking points. Are you actually even a real human being? Has the military already deployed killer robots right here on the discussion fora of the internet? Here: read this chaptcha: notaspook . Ok?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:06PM
Yes, and it's also straight out of the smear campaign against Snowden that the NSA began when all the news first broke. Remember that cringe-worthy propaganda piece [youtube.com] they put out "interviewing" Keith Alexander about the NSA's criminal programs? It's absolutely one of the agency's talking points and you're repeating it here. It ought to be modded into a smoking hole in the ground.
Haven't the geniuses at JTRIG figured out yet that those 3-yr old talking points have completely failed? Did its surrogates not get that memo yet?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday July 30 2015, @12:39AM
I didn't mod your post but I'm writing this to address your concern it was modded down unfairly.
You don't address the fact he was whistle blowing on the government breaking the law. Yes some of that stuff might be a gold mine but he was, as some one else posted, upholding his oath to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and *domestic*
So he broke the law. He didn't go on a shooting rampage of federal employees, that would be over the line. He blew the whistle to media. Is that over the line? Where that line should be is up for discussion.
(Score: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @04:20AM
Here, let's get some distance from the specifics of this case. I'll make up a similar example, and you tell me why it is an example of a perfectly ethical whistleblower.
We have a Mr. Iceden. He works in the accounting department of Ford Motor Company. As corporations are wont to do, Ford is trying to find loopholes in the tax law so that taxes don't need to be paid. One day while cutting it close to the line, Mr. Iceden correctly determines that something is illegal. Most of the people around him honestly disagree, and the others would rather not rock the boat. Mr. Iceden gets nowhere complaining to his boss.
Mr. Iceden decides to go public with this. He posts the accounting data for the world to see. He also posts plans for future vehicles, intentions for union negotiations, unreleased quarterly financial results, factory setup info, CAD models, discussions with lawyers for an ongoing lawsuit, and unfiled patent applications.
Whenever people say that Mr. Iceden did something wrong, he and his supporters claim that he is a whistleblower. Tax evasion is illegal!
Well?
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday July 30 2015, @05:19AM
Interesting, but let's stay in reality instead of making up a case study.
I googled "scope of snowden leak" and clicked on the first 3 results.
Article 1: ------------
• Classified assessment describes impact of leaks as 'grave'
• Report does not include specific detail to support conclusions
Article 2: ------------
"...while the DIA report describes the damage to US intelligence capabilities as “grave”, the government still refuses to release any specific details to support this conclusion."
Article 3: ------------
1. Secret court orders allow NSA to sweep up Americans' phone records
2. PRISM
3. Britain's version of the NSA taps fiber optic cables around the world
4. NSA spies on foreign countries and world leaders
5. XKeyscore, the program that sees everything
6. NSA efforts to crack encryption and undermine Internet security
7. NSA elite hacking team techniques revealed
8. NSA cracks Google and Yahoo data center links
9. NSA collects text messages
10. NSA intercepts all phone calls in two countries
---------------------------------
So journalists covering this have looked for the "grave" consequences of his actions but have not been able to document them. Whereas article 3 shows the amazing amount of bad he exposed.
---------------------------------
So let's google "damage caused by snowden"
It brings back gems like:
Alexander said that broad surveillance efforts on Americans' phone records and on foreign internet usage, disclosed by Snowden, was in line with Americans' expectations for preventing another 9/11.
"These two capabilities helped us form the dots," Alexander said. "I think that's what the American people want us to do."
He thought that's what the citizens wanted him to do? I'm glad it was exposed. The scope of what he uncovered makes me forgive any collateral leaks that were not nessessary.
(Score: 1) by albert on Thursday July 30 2015, @06:21AM
I'll take that as conceding the point.
It's also pretty obvious that nobody is about to goad the NSA into releasing even more sensitive info. You can shout about them not providing evidence all you want, but they really obviously need to resist the temptation to answer you with evidence.
As for that 3rd article with the list, many items are the intended and lawful job of the NSA:
From the moment the agency was founded many decades ago, the primary mission has been to dig into the communications of foreigners. It is to be expected that they actually do this.
Come on now, "spies on foreign countries and world leaders" is clearly legit. The elite hacking team techniques are directly in support of that.
I know that some people don't like the NSA's mission. This is no different from the fact that some people don't like the military's mission, which is literally to kill foreigners. You can dislike the mission all you want, but you still benefit from it. Be glad you have the right to complain. If the US were stupid enough to give up such capability, you'd eventually lose your right to complain due to being conquered.
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday July 30 2015, @06:43AM
yup, we both agree they do some "right" and some wrong. Where does one draw the line? Was Snowden justified in leaking information wholesale to expose the illegal actions of his superiors/agency/government?
Here was one of Obama's campaign promises:
Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
If I was on Snowdens jury, he'd get a free pass. Sadly, I'm not even sure if he'd get a proper trial. Him coming home could put him in some alternate "justice" system where he is labelled a terrorist.
Are you OK with that? with gitmo? with the government breaking the law? see, it's this larger picture of abuses of authority that make me forgive Snowden... even if you "proved" to me that he leaked a piece of intel that was irrelevant to whistleblowing and illegal to do so and harmful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:57AM
I totally agree, I mean, its so obviously a liberal conspiracy, there's no way in hell that any of these mods are legitimate! Why, I'll bet you anything this post right here will get modded troll by SJWs trying to force PC on us from their west-coast, liberal, ivory-tower colleges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:31AM
Translated: "Hmm, far more people disagree with me than agree with me, but I can't possibly be wrong so it must be the fault of the moderation system that prevents my viewpoint from being presented. Who cares that these people are, as a group, likely to be far more informed than me on the subject, especially given the bias of opinion my home state immediately imposes on me... no, must be the mod system at fault here."
Seriously, get a clue how the site works, numbnuts!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:43PM
When all the down mods are troll, flamebait and offtopic, then yes, you fucking braindead dipshit, it is mod abuse and tyranny of the self-righteous.
Let's look at the responses to his post, which are basically, "you and your opinions, and all those who share them, are ignorant. MY opinions are the one TRUE and RIGHTEOUS thoughts." There are no discussion of his points, just "you are and idiot" responses. Now which posts should be troll and flamebait?Or maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @01:12PM
So, when people who value their freedom downmod and disagree with people expressing proto- or full-on authoritarian positions, they're merely being self-righteous? OK, you know what? I'll own that. I'm not afraid to be self-righteous in the face of fascism. And I'll go on being self-righteous against lickspittles and totalitarian sycophants until my very last breath.
May the ranks of the self-righteous swell until the crimes of the NSA and their apologists have been swept from our midst.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:37PM
Your views do not sound compatible with the Party, comrade. They are not welcome here.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:42PM
Snowdon is a mountain in Wales. I had no idea semi-illiterates from the South held such strong views on Welsh geography. Do tell us your well-reasoned hatred for the peak--is it that you view its classification as the highest mountain in Wales as a plot by liberal elitists?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:28PM
Whatever. Personally, I refrain from moderating in a discussion like this, which I am very passionate about. It would be easy for me to down-mod every comment that I didn't agree with, so I just keep my moderator in it's holster for these conversations.
I may THINK that some of the posters are dumbasses - but I'd be a bigger dumbass to abuse the moderation system in that manner.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:33PM
Well, Runaway, part of me can applaud that. The greater part of me says, there is no excuse for writing apologia for an agency which is the equivalent of the Stasi. Should we all excuse what the Stasi did and what it stood for because many of its top officers were decent family men? Fuck no. When an institution turns so definitively evil as the NSA and Stasi did, you can excuse no man who remains part of it, no matter what. Evil is evil. Condemn it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:05PM
You are being denied the chance to see well-thought-out opinions that would be interesting to you and would give you something to ponder.
I browse at -1, so no.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:07AM
This answer is more honest that you might think.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by liquibyte on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:21AM
Correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't he try to go through proper channels and was ignored or rebuffed?
Civil disobedience requires being disobedient to a law that, while unjust, is legal. The disobedience here was against an out of control government bent on collecting information on every single person within the borders of the United States and therefore highly illegal. Unconstitutional is another word for illegal, remember that. Since the perview of the NSA is under the auspices of the executive branch, should we not be calling for the impeachment of all of those involved in this illegal activity.
We also continue to face spineless politicians that say one thing and do another and yet are never held accountable for their actions even in the face of blatantly and overtly breaking the law. Fuck these people. Every single one of them deserves prison for the rest of their lives. I have no idea the level of narcissism required to double speak like this and still go home to your family at night, look them in the eyes and act like there isn't a huge malignancy rotting our country from the top down. When the true economic crash comes, I hope all their neighbours realize what these people did to cause it all and take appropriate action to eliminate them from the gene-pool. Scumbags every one.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday July 29 2015, @11:27AM
"Going through the right channels" is what you do when your CO is stealing staples.
It is not what you do to deal with secret (against the suffering of military incarceration) institutionalized abuse of a country by its military, despite the clear constitutional violations present.
The proper response is the press and the better discretion of the country's citizens. It's our opinion that matters, not the military.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:44PM
"abuse of a country by its military"
Let me be clear about one thing here: It is NOT the military which is collecting all of this information on Tom, Jane, and Baby Jessica. The military doesn't give one small damn about any of them. It is GOVERNMENT which is collecting the data. The GOVERNMENT is afraid of the people. The GOVERNMENT is afraid of the consequences of it's overbearing attitudes around the world.
There have been some military figures associated with all this governmental spook bullshit, like Alexander, and Gates. But, the NSA is not part of the military, the CIA is not part of the military, the FBI is not part of the military - in fact NONE OF THESE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN DATA COLLECTION ARE PART OF THE MILITARY.
Please, do NOT spread the rumor that the military is part of all this idiocy.
I don't believe that the military even has any real part in the rather despicably spying on our allies. I mean, WTF would any field grade officer give a damn what kind of music Merkel likes? Or how she parts her hair? Or who she's sleeping with? None of that crazy shit has any appeal to the military mind. This is almost entirely civilian run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:32PM
Most of the people in the NSA don't care about that stuff either. What they do care about is identifying and suppressing those who challenge the status quo (like MLK, whistleblowers, protestors, etc.). The 'average' person has little to fear unless the government mistakes them for one of their actual targets, or they make some sort of joke that the government will misinterpret (i.e. "I'm going to bomb an airport because my plane was late!").
And this is one of the problems: Most people don't care unless they're personally being abused. They have trouble feeling empathy for others, and feel that the authorities must always be right.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:40PM
I can support this distinction. The military comprises a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints. But a more important issue is raised here: at what point do the rank-and-file share or escape culpability with clear institutional crimes? The NSA has formed itself into the existential threat to freedom in the world. They have betrayed every trust placed in them. They have ignored our most sacred laws. Maybe many of them were ignorant of that pre-Snowden, but now how can they be? Can we now judge, justly, each and every one of them who has stayed or not leaked information about the NSA's crimes to be accessories to that crime?
I say yes.
If laws are not followed, then they are not laws but suggestions. If we have Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and any branch of the government chooses to not follow those, then they must be cut off, mulched, and burned to ashes. They must be utterly destroyed. Period. Else, there is no law, and no freedom, and our entire country is a mockery of the concept of freedom.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:33AM
We're very quickly approaching that threshold where the damage done cannot be repaired. The fact that they can say things like this without any sense of shame or hypocrisy demonstrates it:
not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime.
Worse yet, they can say such things with the bulk of the population not seeing the hypocrisy either. Also the editor /or article author forgot the last paragraph. It's very cute that they're the ones talking about open discourse:
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home."
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:34AM
Woops, looks like I was mistaken about the last paragraph or the page just didn't load fully. Sorry about that.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:32PM
We're well past that point with the damage he's done to foreign intelligence gathering and processes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:32PM
The real threat is from our government itself, which not only violates the highest law of the land, but basic ethical principles. It is far worse for the government--which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people--to abuse your freedoms than it is for you to be attacked by terrorists, because then the entire institution of government becomes corrupt, whereas you already don't expect much from terrorists or criminals.
Our foreign intelligence gathering and processes *should* be damaged, because they are unethical, corrupt, and anti-freedom. That's what mass surveillance always is. Just because someone happens to be born in a different country doesn't mean they don't have rights. We need actual oversight before we spy on anyone. And as we've seen, if they're allowed to spy on foreigners with impunity, they will inevitably end up spying on Americans they believe are more likely than not to be foreigners. So it's bad for everyone.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:47PM
I agree with you. I would also counter those who argue for aquiescence, saying, "The majority of Americans don't even know who Snowden is!!!" Of course they don't. How many colonists truly understood the issues that led the Founding Fathers to rebel against Britain? In a time with no public educational system, no Internet, no universal suffrage, how could they have? Still, a few who did understand, fought.
Now, we have many more advantages and those who choose to defend tyranny cannot be understood to be doing anything but doing that willingly. They have every reason to know better, but still they choose to side with evil. We who value freedom, and freedom of thought, must spurn those. We who do pay attention and cherish our freedom must speak and act. If we don't, then we deserve 10,000 generations of slavery.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Natales on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:41AM
The problem is that the general population doesn't care. I was shocked when John Oliver interviewed [youtube.com] all this random people in the street regarding to Snowden and most of them didn't even know who he was. If anything, some people remembered "he was a spy" or he had "stolen secrets". Some others confused him with Julian Assange.
The saddest thing was when he went to Russia and showed this video to Snowden himself. I could see the disbelief in his eyes, and the shock. I can't imagine what must feel giving up your life for a cause believing people behind you will rise up when they know what you know. But in the end, they don't care.
Only when he equated it to the government was able to "see your junk" people got upset.
Let's face it: if we are reading this site, we are not the majority. We are nerds and geeks. We get it. We understand. But I'm not optimistic we'll be able to change anything as big as this unless it hits a specially strong cord with the masses.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:47AM
since seeing that, i have been doing my best to spread that truth - the NSA/DEA dragnets [firstlook.org] mean they have your dick-pics. whatever it takes to make people aware of the implications (my negative charisma is the real problem here).
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday July 29 2015, @10:21AM
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
(Churchill (House of Commons, 11 November 1947)—quoting an unknown predecessor. From "Churchill by Himself", page 574)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:18AM
I'm not surprised it took two years to craft that response. It's clearly the highest grade of bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:07AM
Your junk is two years old? Or only the latest online live feed of your junk? You are not being clear. Please increase the gain on the primary transmitter, and watch out for Tom Cruise.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @07:36AM
It is obvious that OPSECS is drilled into many shallow heads. Yes, to operate as an intelligence agency, secrecy and quarantine are necessary. But the more usual branches of security forces point out that you are not to follow illegal orders. Yes, if you work for an organization that routinely violates the laws of targets, it may be a stretch to recognize when the laws you have violated are your own. But I, for one, expect that of any nation's intelligence services. If they cannot distinguish between legal and illegal espionage under their own nation's laws, they have gone rogue, and they need someone like Snowden to out them for their acts of treason. Do you not see this? Just because your security apparatus has determined that your own citizens are potential enemies, this does not make it so. In fact, the exact opposite could be the case. We call it "mirroring" in the intelligence field. Newbies, like the FBI, may have some trouble with it at first. But just because Snowden broke OPSECS, it does not necessarily mean he is a traitor. In fact, he may be the most fundamental kind of patriot. So we understand your moral tension, all you from Virginia, and Texas, and whereever the intelligence community sees fit to recruit from these days, feel. But make sure you are honoring your oath. The one to the constitution, of whatever country you purport to serve, to people. And if you are not honoring it, you are the enemy. Oh, wow, who saw that coming? You mean "we are the Redcoates?" {Daniel Ellsberg }
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @08:19AM
he'll be brought out of solitary to help fight off evil ex-navy seals on alcatraz
"i'm only borrowing your humvee!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @08:38AM
Ah, America, home of the <strike>brave</strike> cowards.
(SN, please bring the strike tag back!)
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:50PM
w̶h̶a̶c̶h̶o̶o̶t̶a̶l̶k̶i̶n̶b̶o̶u̶t̶?̶ ̶
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:06PM
It took me a minute to figure out what you did there. Unicode diacritic mark for "combining long stroke overlay", right? S̶o̶̶̶m̶̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶?̶
It's interesting to me that the "m" character is too long to get properly marked through with that technique.
I'm not entirely sure why that got marked flamebait, it points out that a valid solution exists. Would have been more helpful, perhaps, if it explained how, I guess...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @06:04PM
Sorry - you're right, I should have offered something more than a smartass comment. Try this - it's a simple copy paste operation - http://adamvarga.com/strike/ [adamvarga.com]
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:07PM
Nice! That's a slick tool, nice to know it exists. Looks like there are a bunch of similar things, I just did a search for "unicode strik" (yep, I can't type) and got a nice education on the variety of scripts available for making fun text decorations with Unicode.
Thanks!
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:35AM
"f he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do:
Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON!"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @12:37PM
Obama shall receive no pardon. Dirty traitor, he must hang.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @11:44PM
Obama shall receive no pardon. Dirty traitor, he must hang.
Obama and...
Baby Bush
Clinton
Papa Bush
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
.
.
.
They are all murderous criminals.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @02:06PM
Arrogant, pompous asses in Washington decide what is criminal, and what is not. It's alright for them to take bribes, and to sell our country out from under us - THOSE aren't real crimes. But when an honest man tells us how badly government is treating us, as well as people around the world, THAT is a crime?
Imagine that our government hosted a party, on a cruise ship. Imagine that ship met with disaster, and it was slowly sinking. Imagine that I had the power to save all the congress critters, all the governors, Obama and his cabinet, and all the directors of all the agencies of our government.
And, before I could get there, Snowden put out a distress call that his dinghy was sinking.
Guess which direction I would go?
Fuck the government. The entire horde of leeches in Washington don't have the balls that one Edward Snowden has.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 29 2015, @04:50PM
Runaway, may God bless you and reward you for that excellent indictment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @03:05PM
while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.
That's right citizen, you're lucky the consitution 'requires' it because otherwise: BAM, Gitmo for you. I hate that constitution thing but I'm working on getting rid of it... slowly and gradually
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @05:52PM
First mistake: "we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President's Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism."
Perhaps we should be hearing from the President's Advisor on Civil Rights. Who is that, by the way? How about the Ethics and Transparency Czar, instead??? (And Wikipedia suggests that there actually is such a position by Executive Order, but then conflates it with White House Counsel and lists a Counsel who left office in 2011 as the last holder of it.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2015, @09:11PM
How is what Snowden did different than what Hillary did? Hmmm........