Slashdot Mirror


USA Calling For the Extradition of Snowden

Taco Cowboy writes "Edward Snowden, the leaker who gave us the evidence of US government spying on its people is under threat of being extradited back to the U.S. to face prosecution. Some people in Congress, including Republican Peter King (R-NY), are calling for his extradition from Hong Kong to face trial. From the article: 'A spokesman for the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said Snowden's case had been referred to the justice department and US intelligence was assessing the damage caused by the disclosures. "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"

955 comments

  1. Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously ... if there is anyone out there who is a lawyer, or is knowledgeable enough to take this on ... this is your issue. Start a fund. Start it now.

    1. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So still less people than car accidents?

      Why don't we prosecute unsafe/elderly drivers? That would save far more lives and not risk loss of freedom.

    2. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing.
      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

    3. Re:Someone start a defense fund by stanIyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and betraying democracy

      When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?

      Seriously, this guy is a criminal

      Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.

    4. Re:Someone start a defense fund by stanIyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?

      Freedom is more important than security, drone.

    5. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think unconstitutional spying is far more betraying democracy than releasing some information. Democracy without an informed populace cannot work.

      I was not comparing the relative moralities only the headcount. Terrorism is simply too rare to dedicate so much resources too. It would be like the government spending billions to protect the populace from lightning.

    6. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While the US justice system responds well to money, good luck trying to outspend the government when it is pissed off at somebody. The only way money could realistically help him is if it prevents him from ever being extradited to the US.

    7. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right that letting unsafe drivers on the road is different from betraying democracy. But we're talking about Snowden here, not the NSA.

    8. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Holi · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the spying on the entire population be a larger betrayal?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and betraying democracy

      When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?

      Seriously, this guy is a criminal

      Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.

      He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret. You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that, but with ONE document. He may be morally in the right, to expose egregious abuse of power and trampling of the 4th amendment (and generally trampling human rights even if the US Constitution isn't the law of the land to whoever was spied on) but he is in some DEEP shit because it was classified the way it was. He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not.

    10. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks? We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

      When you let your wildest fears direct your policy, you can justify almost anything.

    11. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between Freedom and Liberty. This case highlights it.

    12. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and betraying democracy

      When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?

      Democracy is the rule of the people.

      Betraying democracy would therefore be preventing the people from getting the information necessary to make informed choices about who to vote for.

    13. Re:Someone start a defense fund by harlequinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to someone who's already brainwashed into believing that giving up essential liberties for the illusion of safety is a good thing.

    14. Re:Someone start a defense fund by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Nuremburg trials are the defacto case setting the record *very* clear that humans have a moral obligation to defy the rules when the rules violate natural or moral rights. Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation. Ergo, the responsibility was on Mr. Snowden to come forth with the information.

      That the government is appalled, mortified and furious is clear. But what is even more clear is that there was a horrific abuse of power taking place and a voice of moral conscience stepped forward at great personal risk to protect you, me and all of us.

      This is a hero. He deserves the protection of the public at large. And those within the government who have neglected their responsibilities, abandoned the cause of freedom and violated our constitutional and natural rights deserve prosecution to the full extent of the law.

      What is just as disheartening as the government's efforts to extradite Snowden, is the total lack of silence in terms of desire to prosecute the actual wrongdoers.

      Who were they? What were their names? How high did the chain of command go? When will there be a trial? How many dozens of people (or hundreds?) will be serving 20 year sentences? THESE are the questions that need to be answered. Not whether Mr. Snowden has violated the requirements of his day job.

      Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    15. Re:Someone start a defense fund by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
      We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

      Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...

      It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.

      For extraordinarily broad, no-end-in-sight, wiretaps, though, essentially no useful information is provided to any suspect by the revelation of the program. If all I know is that the NSA demands every phone metadata record in the US and has swift, privileged, access to the who's who of internet companies, that tells me absolutely nothing of use. All the paranoids and skeptics already strongly suspected that this was the case, so this merely provides proof in writing of what any sensible perp would have already assumed, and the scope of the programs is so vast that it is impossible to infer anything about your specific case that would make it easier to hide.

      Obviously, the program was secret because its operators didn't want any inconvenient 'questions' or 'displeasure'; but that isn't a good reason, just an attractive one.

      Had he leaked "The NSA knows Muhammad Ibn Al-Jihad's 4 phone-numbers-he-thinks-are-secret and is recording all of them", that'd be the sort of leak that would be obviously damaging and irresponsible. "The NSA tracks all calls routed through US telcos", though, tells nobody anything specific to them. Plus, the program is supposedly all-totally-legal-and-on-the-up-and-up-and-whatnot, so being exposed shouldn't even threaten its continuation(unlike the previous illegal wiretapping program that we threw some after-the-fact legality on when it was revealed).

      So, please, let's hear an argument about why revealing this program is harmful. I'd be interested to hear a good one; because so far I haven't even heard bad ones.

    16. Re:Someone start a defense fund by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't it obvious? There is nothing more destructive to democracy than allowing the electorate to know what they are voting for! How can you possibly get things done with a bunch of 'constituents' whining about what is being done in their name?

    17. Re:Someone start a defense fund by lxs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We're talking about saving lives here.

      If those lives are lived under constant surveillance then it's perhaps kinder to let them die. But hey, if you don't mind having a neckbeard at the NSA jerking off to the private pictures your girlfriend sent you, then that is your business.

    18. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I agree, I also think it has been blown out of proportion. From what we have seen of costs and more information coming out, I think the program is far more limited than most foaming at the mouth posters believe.

      I am not sure what you mean about that last thing. The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy. The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well. If you come out and say you oppose law X then I expect the agency in charge of enforcement will at least give you an extra look.

    19. Re:Someone start a defense fund by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I will happily trade your fascist fear-mongering for democratic freedom.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    20. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.

      Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, this program is currently legal. I don't think it will pass Constitutional muster if it ever hit the courts, but that hasn't happened yet. The appropriate course of action would be to challenge this law in the courts rather than releasing classified data.

      But the administration has repeatedly blocked any attempts to challenge their actions regarding spying, FISA, et al, in court. How can it ever be ruled upon if they prevent such an act by using the same process and laws that they claim they aren't using, but if they are then they're legal anyway because they say so and the courts have not said otherwise?

    22. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.

      The problem with his position is that his leak included no actual documenting of those crimes; no details about what information was obtained, if any of it was obtained on a US citizen without a warrant, or who authorized/oversaw it. It sure as hell *sounds* bad but none of it is specific enough to force a "house cleaning". And with most things secretive, there is really little chance of any of that coming to light unless another whistle-blower comes forward with it. His (and our) only hope is that someone will come forward with that. Until then, the only reaction will be the usual partisan "in fact [insert opposition party] started this with X" and "it's well known that [insert opposition party] really did this with Y".

    23. Re:Someone start a defense fund by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rep. Peter King should be impeached and prosecuted for violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, a high crime.

      I might go so far as to claim that he has even adhered to it's enemies (those who seek to undermine the Constitution), giving them aid and comfort, and should therefore be tried for treason.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    24. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At the very least, sign the Whitehouse Petition, if only for the entertainment value of forcing Obama to respond.

      Pardon Snowden

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
      We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

      veeery unlikely.
      but you know what.. are the leaks now confirmed AS REAL? so we can stop with wondering if usa government is stretching the definition of legal or not..

      and actually that matters, if he leaked something that the government is technically doing illegally then he has basis for applying for political asylum with good reasons.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    26. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Pray tell us all, just how does a phone tap prevent some fuck with a boxcutter breaking a secured door to an aircraft cockpit and flying it into a building?

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    27. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jittles · · Score: 0

      So still less people than car accidents?

      Why don't we prosecute unsafe/elderly drivers? That would save far more lives and not risk loss of freedom.

      Hell, I would be happy if they would just take their driver's licenses away! I was almost killed by an old lady on Saturday while out on my motorcycle. She made an unprotected left turn in front of me and then STOPPED across all lanes of traffic because she decided it wasn't safe to complete her turn. Being the paranoid rider that I am, I watched her all the way out of the parking lot she was in. She never once looked to the left before completing her turn. Not once. After coming to an emergency stop, I laid on my horn and the lady couldn't hear it (I was less than 5 feet from her driver's side window by the time I completed my stop). She can't hear and she doesn't know what the hell to do on the road anymore.

      Those kind of people should not be driving. I pray that when I reach that age, I have the wisdom to recognize my body and mind are just not up to operating dangerous machinery in the presence of large groups of traffic.

    28. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on your definition of right.
      Acting without a common definition is anarchy.

    29. Re:Someone start a defense fund by rnturn · · Score: 1

      You forgot the <snark>...</snark> tags.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    30. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that a government TLA was given advance warning of basically ever single attack that's occurred and STILL managed to fail to stop them even when the perpetrators were named I fail to see what this does to help the situation.

      Also, go fuck yourself you coward. More people die in pool each year than from terrorism. Hell, more innocent people are shot by police each year.

    31. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't someone think of the children?!?

      ^^ That's what you sound like.

    32. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.

      Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.

      It's a particularly tricky "do two wrongs make a right" situation. Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies. If he had a way to document abuses of civil liberties that involved not revealing top secret information, that would have been the "right" thing to do instead of this. We don't know enough facts about his situation (and probably never will) to say if he did this as truly a last resort, or as a rather careless act of defiance that puts him in the "two wrongs do NOT make a right" category.

    33. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tukang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlike Bradley Manning who just dumped all the info he had access to, Snowden only released documents that showed how the gov't was infringing on people's rights. Snowden had access to "the roster of all agents and operating stations". I wish people would stop comparing him to Manning.

    34. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Near me we had an old lady crash into a restaurant. She killed two diners and one waitress. This left the child at that table an orphan. She somehow confused the gas and brake. I cannot fathom how that can happen. If you or I did that we would be living in an 8x8 for decades, she is voluntarily giving up her license and that is the end of it.

    35. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Rougement · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What rubbish. Comments seem to veer from "OMG! He's a traitor who should be publicly executed" to, "who cares? I thought everyone knew this was happening, it's been going on for years" I don't see anything in the docs released thus far that would compromise any operations - Because Snowden was careful only to release stuff that details the general nature of the program. Anyway, give me "several 9/11 level attacks" over a massive government spying operation on its own people. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

    36. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Black+LED · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go watch the interviews with him. If anything, Mr. Snowden is protecting democracy. He is a patriot and a hero.

    37. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congresspeople in both parties didn't have a problem with the programs in the release material. Who precisely are we going to vote for?

    38. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Acting without a common definition is anarchy

      So just like the NSA and US government acted when they illegally gave themselves the power to spy on its citizens.

    39. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That a government may want something kept secret hardly means that it is wrong to reveal the secret. Yes, it will be a crime, but the debate here is not whether he committed a crime ore not, but whether what he did was right or not.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    40. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...

      It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.

      The argument is actually pretty obvious; if you are plotting something that the NSA wants to know about, and you know that they have free and clear access to X providers, you simply avoid communicating via X providers when relaying details of your plot. Intent on good or evil, a US citizen who has not given up enough details of his intent to qualify for a warrant could, theoretically, count on the protection of the fourth amendment to avoid detection. Of course, this argument runs contrary to the fourth amendment because that is what it is supposed to do. The argument is clear, it's just not the one we want to hear.

    41. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      That doesn't sound like betraying democracy.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    42. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      As far as can be told, the programs in the released material were 100% legal and vetted by Congress and the FISA courts. Perhaps you don't like what happened, but it's not a crime. The only crime here is releasing classified material.

      You may well ask if that is fair, since you consider it morally repugnant, but it is still legal.

    43. Re:Someone start a defense fund by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I'm hoping that they are still implied by the sheer absurdity of what I wrote. Hoping.

    44. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole program that he exposed was essentially search without warrants on every damn US citizen.

      That's the fucking crime.

      Or can you really not see that?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    45. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they claim they aren't using,

      correction: that should have been abusing.

    46. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree completely!

    47. Re:Someone start a defense fund by 0racle · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If you think that is an appropriate course of action you might as well just pray that he is pardoned. It has the same chance of success and is just as useful.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    48. Re:Someone start a defense fund by rnturn · · Score: 3, Informative

      ``To be fair, this program is currently legal. I don't think it will pass Constitutional muster if it ever hit the courts, but that hasn't happened yet.''

      Yeah. It's legal because the U.S. Govt. says it's legal. The justification for this supposed legality is, of course, contained in a classified document. So we're just supposed to trust the govt. on this. IMHO, the govt. hasn't earned that level of trust on this.

      ``The appropriate course of action would be to challenge this law in the courts rather than releasing classified data.

      This was tried already a few years ago, AFAIR, in response the secret room in the AT&T facility on the West coast. The case was thrown out because they couldn't prove that they were spied upon by a secret spying program.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    49. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that anyone is surprised by this? We already knew who we were voting for. This is just the release of top secret material that, for all I can see, revealed the execution of 100% legal activities that were secret because they were intelligence activities.

      The sad thing is, I'm sure there are actually illegal activities out there to be released, but we only hear about the legal one that we're told to be outraged by. I'm not buying it.

      I'm sorry, but Snowden needs to join Manning in prison.

    50. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret.

      Remind me again what classifying information as Top Secret has to do with democracy.

    51. Re:Someone start a defense fund by dywolf · · Score: 2

      its not wrong if its the right thing to do.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    52. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      This man is a hero. He is providing the transparency and accountability that Obama promised and failed to deliver after he sold out the liberals who got him elected.

    53. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have a problem with the government gathering this data to fight terrorism.

      Every US citizen is not involved in terrorism.

      Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    54. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The secret surveillance police state itself is a betrayal of democracy.

      This man is a HERO of democracy.

    55. Re:Someone start a defense fund by joshuao3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree a defense fund should be started. Not because I think he's innocent, but because spending more time in the courts about the broader subject of privacy and the limiting of the government's grasp is important. He fell on the sword--he's brave wrong man.

      --
      Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
    56. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 0, Troll

      Go lick the jack-boots of your masters elsewhere.

    57. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      But not as entertaining.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    58. Re:Someone start a defense fund by dywolf · · Score: 2

      its only "legal" because they passed laws making it so. however those laws are themselves in conflict with higher laws (namely the USC and general ideals/principles of a free, democratic society), and therefore anything they "make legal" are also in conflict.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    59. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what is right for society is what is granted through consensus. These decisions were made without any regard to what the people want.

    60. Re:Someone start a defense fund by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.

      The problem with his position is that his leak included no actual documenting of those crimes; no details about what information was obtained, if any of it was obtained on a US citizen without a warrant, or who authorized/oversaw it. It sure as hell *sounds* bad but none of it is specific enough to force a "house cleaning".

      If as you say the whistleblower provided no supporting documentation and only his allegations... what possible grounds are there for extradition?

      A charge of simply "trash-talking/slandering former employer" doesn't pass the smell test, and would run afoul of the 1st amendment (for what little that's worth these days).

    61. Re:Someone start a defense fund by wytcld · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, this program is currently legal. I don't think it will pass Constitutional muster if it ever hit the courts, but that hasn't happened yet. The appropriate course of action would be to challenge this law in the courts rather than releasing classified data.

      You're aware that the ACLU and others have repeatedly tried to bring this before the courts, and been shut down by the Obama's people claiming that, since the program is so secret, whoever is bringing suit can't prove that the program specifically harmed them, and so has no legal standing to even make the case before a court? The courts, by accepting the argument that no one has standing to challenge these practices, have avoided having to rule on the Constitutionality of it all.

      Your "appropriate course of action" has been tried. It doesn't work, not because the courts rule these programs Constitutional, but because the courts accept Obama's argument that truly secret programs are beyond court review. If your view of the Constitution is that any law that infringes on our rights can be challenged in court, then you must accept that the courts, just as much as the administration, have found ways to slip outside the Constitution's bounds and responsibilities.

      So the appropriate course of action, in your view, given this, is ... what?

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    62. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me: This is a decision for the people
      You: I will take whatever decision is handed down to me from the government

      Who exactly is licking the boots here?

    63. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies.

      That's a valid argument in Bradley Manning's case, where he disclosed so many documents that he couldn't possibly have even read them all. I don't see that here. He released two documents which he understood very well, and which were simply secret court orders giving broad surveillance authority to the government.

      We don't know enough facts about his situation

      I'm not sure what you are referring to - the government has confessed to collecting broad swaths of data about all of us. Broad, constant surveillance at this scale should have every single American completely horrified. It is indeed the foundation of a surveillance state.

      This guy broke the law, there's no question about it. Sometimes the law is wrong. This is one of those cases.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    64. Re:Someone start a defense fund by techsoldaten · · Score: 0

      Or outlaw guns. They are much more lethal annually than all the terrorists who have attacked America to date.

      For that matter. amazing we can keep a tab on everyone in the *world* with a smartphone or email address, but we can't keep track of all the guns out there.

      There's a reason people don't want their guns to be tracked, and it's the same reason we don't want all our phones tapped. Does not matter if someone is actively or passively eavesdropping, we don't like the government to know too much about our business.

    65. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So it is your contention that he did the wrong thing? Is it OK for the government to collect detailed phone records of every single American?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    66. Re:Someone start a defense fund by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      The Nuremburg trials established that you can be tried for following an illegal order. They did not establish that you cannot be tried for not following an illegal order.

    67. Re:Someone start a defense fund by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?

      Freedom is more important than security, drone.

      Not to the majority of American people, apparently. They say they do, they may even think they do, but (in)actions speak louder than words.

    68. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, effectively you're saying it's illegal to expose criminal behaviour as long as said behaviour is secret?

      Some ardent proponent of democracy you are. BTW, George Orwell is on line 2, he wants to speak with you.

    69. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jittles · · Score: 1

      Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...

      It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.

      The argument is actually pretty obvious; if you are plotting something that the NSA wants to know about, and you know that they have free and clear access to X providers, you simply avoid communicating via X providers when relaying details of your plot. Intent on good or evil, a US citizen who has not given up enough details of his intent to qualify for a warrant could, theoretically, count on the protection of the fourth amendment to avoid detection. Of course, this argument runs contrary to the fourth amendment because that is what it is supposed to do. The argument is clear, it's just not the one we want to hear.

      Good luck. You simply cannot communicate in the US without some or all of your traffic going through one of those service providers. Want to make a landline/cell call? Nope. They're on that. VoIP call? Nope they've got all that tapped too. Your only choices are snail mail and short-wave radio. Sure you could encrypt your voice and data transmissions, but I'd be surprised if they weren't doing that already.

    70. Re:Someone start a defense fund by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Manning didn't just dump everything. He handed it over to professionals (Wikileaks and the newspapers) who worked to redact and pick out what to publish. The pros even offered to work with the US govt. to redact stuff that might have threatened people's safety, they said no.

      The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.

      Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    71. Re:Someone start a defense fund by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      And acting on a definition handed down from your self-styled "betters" is feudalism, at best.

    72. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You got that backwards bucko.

      You are accepting whatever the government tells you.

      I am standing up for a Hero was forced into a position where he had to chose between upholding the constitution (the first part of his oath) or following orders (another part of his oath). If he didn't blow the whistle, he would still be violating his oath.

    73. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Holi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike Manning, he targeted a specific program of domestic spying. Under the Espionage Act this would only be considered a criminal act if it directly harms national defense. Since I find it hard to believe that a wide net surveillance program that violates the constitution is required for our national defense I am wondering how they will charge him.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    74. Re:Someone start a defense fund by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because they never assumed they were being listened to in the first place? if they did then theyre rank amatuers and destined to live a very short life.

      when you have a secret you want to keep hidden, it doesnt matter what provider you use. you always assume "they" are listening in, regardless of whether they are or not. its not like these guys are talking "in the clear" over cellular networks, nor that the NSA is really listening in hoping to hear "the bomb will explode at midnight". they might hear that, but its extremely extremely unlikely. if the bad guys know anything at all they will be talking in code, making what appears to normal everyday conversation.

      and that, that is the reason the NSA wants to listen in and use a big data mining operation approach: because they have the unenviable task of seperating the ordinary converstions from the would be plotters. and i understand the NSAs desire to tap everything. I just dont happen to support it or think they should do it on a blanket, everyone is a supect approach.

      they are essentially using tremendous resources and expense to track and prevent statistical outliers......a 90yo grandma may be a plotter....but the odds are so astronomically low its not worth mentioning. however that new arrival from Iran who works in in a government research lab on a visa, who lives alone and never cooks calling home daily for an ingredient list that he never actually buys......would be well warranted a higher level of suspicion. but chances are they are already looking at him closer, including his phone, and dont need blanket phone surveillence on everyone in order to identify him as a higher probability threat.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    75. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using that word: 'legal'

      I do not think it means what you think it means. There is a reason the Constitution is called the highest law in the land. That's because it is.

      No matter what pieces of paper passed by corrupt Congresscritters say, if they are repugnant to the Constitution THEY ARE NOT LEGAL. In fact, they are null and void. This applies to pretty much the entirety of the TSA and PRISM. Every last scrap of this is null and void. Exactly NONE of it is legal.

      CAPTCHA: terrors

    76. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also think it has been blown out of proportion

      A whole-scale dragnet against the entire US population is one of the biggest scandals in the history of our nation. That is not hyperbole and you have no basis to claim it is.

      The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy

      The tax protesters who are being investigated are not committing crimes or advocating the commission of any crimes. There is no legal basis to scrutinize them any more than the average non-profit.

      The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well

      If you can't see the difference between people who openly smoke pot and advocate its legality versus people who advocate reform and/or abolishment of tax law but are otherwise currently paying their taxes, then you have a serious mental deficiency.

    77. Re:Someone start a defense fund by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Kind of odd that when I go there it says I've already signed it. Even though I haven't.

    78. Re:Someone start a defense fund by berashith · · Score: 1

      well, if the crime is uncovering crime, then I call him a hero. It looks like he was stuck between upholding the constitution and following an obligation to protect classified material. If that classified material is completely counter to everything that the country is supposed to stand for, then it should be revealed. Tough choice, and a brave man.

    79. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 0

      First of all, when people create conspiracies to do this sort of thing, they talk to other people. If you find some low level toady or wannabe, or maybe a family member of a radical, you can find out who they have called. That information allows you to create a network of acquaintances. Obviously, calls to their mom or family will be of less value, but that one call to that previously unknown number that was also linked to this other suspicious number gives you somewhere to look.

      Once you determine networks of radicalized contacts, you can start narrowing down contacts until you have probable cause so that you can get an actual wiretap warrant. You would probably do other work to shore that up.

      Once you have that information, you can keep tabs on and build a case against that person. The result? Someone who isn't going to even going to be able to get on a plane, let alone with a box cutter. AND all of their radicalized buddies can be rolled up as well.

      There is nothing inherently sinister about this process, provided it is done with oversight. As far as I can tell, it was done within the law and with approval of Congress. If they were broadly listening to phone conversations, or even keeping information on citizens, that might be different.

      More may come out, but in the end, this is just an uproar about a program that is actually fairly well under control, as far as I can see. I'm not going to suggest that it saves lives on a daily basis or something, but it is an investigatory tool, and good investigations can save lives. I just think Snowden, who was not an intelligence analyst, went "OMG they're getting all teh phones!" and flipped out. He should have fitted his tinfoil hat more closely.

    80. Re:Someone start a defense fund by slew · · Score: 1

      Rep. Peter King should be impeached and prosecuted...

      Since it appears that every member of congress and the president of the United states knew about this spying program with briefs from the intelligence agencies annual authorization and approved it, what say you about them? What makes Rep. King so special? The mere fact that he is one of the voices calling for extradition? his name? or his party affiliation?, or ...

      Unless I'm mistaken, people are impeached and prosecuted for their ***crimes*** yet aren't people free to express the views that they want w/o being threatened with prosecution?

      Or is this just some political rant you are going on about?

    81. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Wow, gave up her license!

      Usually they just blame the car manufacturer and have them recall thousands of vehicles to fix some made up non-problem instead.

    82. Re:Someone start a defense fund by berashith · · Score: 1

      or even the people having an opportunity to say what they want. Or without knowing when the govt has been restricted. Or what they tried to do when they have been restricted. There is no concensus, and hopefully now there is information out there that will force a conversation and we can arrive at consensus. I have a guess that the people in charge know what the answer will be, which is why they have avoided askign the question.

    83. Re:Someone start a defense fund by berashith · · Score: 1

      exactly. there is a massive difference. In this case, there was an effort to avoid any personal risks, only policy was exposed.

    84. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a problem with the government gathering this data to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, this administration has shown that it has no problem abusing government agencies to punish political opponents.

      These two sentences conflict with each other. If you think any administration, including the current one, can use this information to punish political opponents then there is a problem with the government gathering this data.

    85. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jythie · · Score: 2

      Esp since vast amounts of material is simply 'secret by default'.

    86. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 0

      The reality is that he exposed a program everyone knew was going on, even the people who are now going "OMG I feel so betrayed!" That's not why he needs to go to jail.

      The reason he needs to go to jail is that he had a clearance and he decided that it was all up to him to leak the material. The fact that the program is actually not even really that bad just makes his future problems seem like a case of unloading a firearm into his foot for no good reason. I don't care if he "carefully selected the material to release", that doesn't mean it is any more justifiable.

    87. Re:Someone start a defense fund by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?

      fear and cowardice. These are the true enemies of liberty.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    88. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      We have less ACTUAL freedom than a guy from North Korea.

      Wow. Just...wow. You live on an interesting planet. Maybe I can visit it some day.

    89. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ajlitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've been PRISM'd.

    90. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any evidence that the NSA doesn't have all of the domestic providers tapped? There is no specific reason to believe that Verizon was the only one.

    91. Re:Someone start a defense fund by berashith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.

    92. Re:Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US is not a democracy, it's a Republic. Learn the difference!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    93. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for the record, your argument is that Snowden didn't leak enough Top Secret classified documents to the press?

    94. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please. Obama will release a comment that he's not going to comment until the facts of the case have been ascertained and he is able to make a good decision. He'll probably also add some script about how releasing classified material is not something he can take lightly, and that appropriate regulations exist for a reason.

      Point being, you need to create the petition AFTER all the facts come out and there is a resolution or Obama will just say, "we're watching the situation closely, and by the way, don't even THINK of doing that yourselves if you have a clearance." I doubt that petition would even cause him to break stride.

    95. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USG has an Intelligence Oversight board that is designed to stop collection on US persons. That should have been the first place he went to report violations, not the news.

    96. Re:Someone start a defense fund by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, one must first take actions which are doomed to fail. If you know an enemy is going to attack you, and you make a pre-emptive strike without first saying "Hey man, back off" or "I don't want any trouble," it can really come around to bite you in the ass. Furthermore, perhaps you are wrong. Asking in a petition for his honorable actions to be considered honorable and not criminal is a good first step even if you're positive it won't work.

      Whatever action you think will be needed eventually, you probably don't want to jump right to it first. Even if it is "gnash your teeth and give up all hope of anything ever getting better."

    97. Re:Someone start a defense fund by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      He swore an oath.

      Oh the joy of moral arithmetic...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    98. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Rougement · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can you then provide an example of when whistleblowing is justified?

    99. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guy makes a completely valid point, modded to -1 because the hivemind disagrees.

      Don't get me wrong, I disagree with him too, but mod abuse is just ridiculous. It's not to squelch opinions we disagree with.

    100. Re:Someone start a defense fund by msauve · · Score: 2

      Violating your oath of office is a high crime and/or treason. Any congresscritters who had direct knowledge of what was being done, and made no attempt at stopping it, have failed to "uphold and defend the Constitution."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    101. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is a FOREIGN intelligence organization. Why would they care about you?

    102. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we're just supposed to trust the govt. on this. IMHO, the govt. hasn't earned that level of trust on this.

      Arguably, /no/ government has earned that level of trust. No government should ever be granted that level trust.

      I'd have qualms if my best friend did stuff that affected me and refused to divulge his reasons. I'm certainly not going to allow a bureaucracy that sort of license.

      Don't trust the government... and every time they ask you to just do so, you should probably suspect them of trying to do you wrong.

    103. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that there are more than two parties, right? As well as a write-in?

    104. Re:Someone start a defense fund by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even doing something which doesn't have much of a chance to help is better than doing nothing at all. A .0000001% chance is better than a 0% chance any day of the week.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    105. Re:Someone start a defense fund by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Is there any evidence that the NSA doesn't have all of the domestic providers tapped? There is no specific reason to believe that Verizon was the only one.

      The only documentation is for Verizon; but the others are assumed to be subject to the same. I think that the poster was referring to the list of tech companies cooperating in the 'Prism' slides. The rest of the industry is presumably not immune to the old 'national security letter with attached gag order' trick; but are not listed as being so... overtly customer-service-oriented and convenient as the Prism members.

    106. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is at least 1 person was/is breaking the law (his NDA). There are more, even if they were 'following the law'. They were breaking one of our highest cherished laws.

      We know of one. He knows the others... Two wrongs do not make a right. Thing is he may be coming forward saying what is going on. He knows because he was doing it TOO. It is like saying that bank robber can go free because he punked out the other 3 guys involved even though he drove the get away car and shot at someone.

      The questions to be answered are. Who knew? How far up does it go. Do people need to be in jail?

      This guy confessed to 2 crimes. One actual law and one constitutional one. And you want to let him go? The first one I could give a crap about. He is one of the spies who was doing this to us....

    107. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is what you will say when some McCarthy-esque type figure emerges and starts taking advantage of that data for some less than noble purpose. While I tend to trust my current government, I have no idea what type of government will arise in the future. It is a slippery slope when this type of activity gets sanctioned as it will never become "un-sanctioned" and the potential for abuse could out way the potential for good.

      I applaud the people who go after terrorists (defined as those who are actively plotting to hurt innocent people), but data mining the entire population is wrong and the potential for future abuse doesn't appear to have the necessary checks and balances.

    108. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, the Supreme Court already rule that GPS tracking without a warrant is already illegal. Which is what this data gave the NSA. GPS data from the phone and/or cell tower.

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/supreme-court-holds-warrantless-gps-tracking-unconstitutional/

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    109. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's not completely incompatible. Obviously it's not ideal and as little as possible should be kept secret.

      However, the US shouldn't have made the details of its WW2 Normandy invasion plans public prior to the invasion, for example.

    110. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "This is a hero. He deserves the protection of the public at large."

      Well said. And unlike some people, I say this applies to Bradley Manning as well.

    111. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "professionals" didn't have clearance to see it so yes he dumped everything.

    112. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anon,+Not+Coward+D · · Score: 1

      Obviously with tax charges

      --
      Sometimes it's better not having signature
    113. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These would largely be the same people who ignored the obvious lies about Iraq, the various war crimes during the war, the establishment abd continuation of a detention without trial system in cuba and the execution of people, citizens and non citizens alike, without trial. I'm sure after all these prosecutable crimes they'll really be worried about THIS latest transgression. And of course now we can all sit back and mock the smelly left wing hippies who protested this shit when it was still fresh.

    114. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ergo, the responsibility was on Mr. Snowden to come forth with the information.

      That doesnt mean we can just pretend the docs werent top secret. You cant set a precedent that "if you THINK what youre doing is right then you can ignore 'top secret'".

    115. Re:Someone start a defense fund by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you know what some guy in North Korea can do?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    116. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      If the law is unconstitutional, then there is a process for vetting it and getting it overturned. In fact in this case, there are many. It is unfortunate that a document for organizing a government is used as an excuse for illegal behavior.

      You don't uphold the Constitution by pretending that you get to interpret it yourself and then go off on your own and break the law.

      In any event, he should get his day in court, and then we will see what the constitutionally ordained courts have to say about his behavior.

    117. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It was supposedly approved by the FISA courts.

      Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.

    118. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jimbolauski · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing. Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      Here is the thing the guy signed a document saying that he would protect classified information which he did not, that is a crime. The guy also signed a document saying he would protect the constitution which he may be able to argue he did by becoming a whistle blower. I this the constitutionality of this law is upheld this guy is fucked but overturned he would be protected.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    119. Re:Someone start a defense fund by msauve · · Score: 2

      One merely has to read the Constitution to know that any law allowing this is unconstitutional. Disingenuous legal rationalizations can't change that. Not even the Supremes declaring that "red is green" could change that.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    120. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just like people who select their own version of the bible and think that those words allow you to make your own shit up. The constitution is not something that just gives you the power to actually ignore the laws which were passed in accordance with the same constitution when you feel like it.

      Passing laws in congress requires a majority, but it looks like under the constitution you are looking at, there must be a clause that says that random people can overturn laws whenever they feel like it.

    121. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is like saying that bank robber can go free because he punked out the other 3 guys involved even though he drove the get away car and shot at someone.

      We reduce sentences for cooperation all the time.

      He is one of the spies who was doing this to us....

      While that is true, he was just a pawn, just a "soldier following orders". He did the right thing in the end, and not out of self-interest like analogous bank robber.

      Anyway, I'm not aware of his impending extradition based on spying on Americans - they are trying to get him for doing the right thing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    122. Re:Someone start a defense fund by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Freedom is only one way of achieving results, of which there are many ways.

      If my goals can be achieved without "freedom", that's just fine.

      Without this useless freedom your 'goal' is to mine 20 hours a day 200ft underground to provide power for the elite few living the good life on the surface. Get real, freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whenever you want. It means you can try.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    123. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing.
      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      And you are a fascist stooge.

      Do us all a favor and kill yourself.

    124. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Warrants were not served.

      The Supreme Court already ruled that warrantless GPS tracking is unconstitutional.
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/supreme-court-holds-warrantless-gps-tracking-unconstitutional/

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    125. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you have that information, you can keep tabs on and build a case against that person. The result? Someone who isn't going to even going to be able to get on a plane, let alone with a box cutter. AND all of their radicalized buddies can be rolled up as well.

      All well and good.

      During the Gulf War II run-up, I stopped talking to friends who joined the antiwar movement. During the 2008 election campaign, I also stopped talking to friends who joined the Tea Party.

      At no point were those people terrists. Despite their political beliefs, they were actually nice people, but they were politically unreliable. I gave up those friendships because I knew what a social graph used for was before Failbook came around, and in an age of no-fly lists, I didn't want to be guilty by association.

      Your Fourth Amendment rights aren't the only ones affected by this; it also goes to your First Amendment right to freedom of association. If you know that everyone you talk to goes down on your permanent record and affects your loyalty rating (or whatever metric gets distilled out of it), there's a chilling effect on who you hang out with.

      Q: "'You're just a plumber! Why are you on the no-fly list?"
      A: "A Senator called me up and asked me to fix the sewage pipes, I looked and said, "Hey, the entire system requires replacement..."

    126. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      One reason Peter King sees terrorists everywhere is that he personally has a history of fundraising and offering political support for terrorist groups. A bit of projection, perhaps.

    127. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nschubach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Duh, it's simple. Sequestering information away from those people that are making decisions on who should be leading the country is tantamount to the security of such a democracy. (I can't even keep a straight face...)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    128. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what you mean about that last thing. The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy. The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well. If you come out and say you oppose law X then I expect the agency in charge of enforcement will at least give you an extra look.

      Free speech is free. We are allowed to disagree with our government and say so out loud and publicly without fear of retaliation. That includes the right to speak out against tax policy without the IRS suppressing you.

      But this goes beyond the TEA Party and their political stance for lower taxes and responsible government spending. Conservative groups that have nothing to do with taxes were also targeted. Pro Life and groups against gay marriage were also targeted. This proves that the targeting was not related to their tax policy, but their political views in general. That is an extreme violation of the First Amendment. The fact that "progressive" groups were given tax exempt status without the same scrutiny violates the 14th Amendment clause that guarantees equal protection under the law. Frankly, if all these groups were given the same scrutiny regardless of their political views, this would not be an issue. But since this scrutiny was only given to one side because of their political views, we have a problem.

      I don't trust a government with everyone's phone records that will abuse power like that to silence the political opposition.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    129. Re:Someone start a defense fund by lxs · · Score: 1

      For one thing, I'm not an American but I still have a gmail account and use whatsapp which means that I'm fair game according to President Shithead. For another, why wouldn't they spy on their own?

    130. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Udom · · Score: 1

      Elderly drivers actually have fewer accidents than young drivers and are far less likely to speed, run red lights, etc... There was a time when women were assumed to be bad drivers. That also was false.

    131. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we prosecute unsafe drivers?

      There, fixed that for you.

    132. Re:Someone start a defense fund by furball · · Score: 1

      > Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation.

      Citation please.

    133. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Richy_T · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To uphold the constitution?

    134. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Being investigated is not retaliation.

      If I say in public that I like to kill people and want to do it again. The cops should probably check on what I have been doing.

      I am pretty sure anti gay marriage groups already do not believe in equal protection under the law.

    135. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Why don't we prosecute unsafe/elderly drivers? That would save far more lives and not risk loss of freedom.

      People do get prosecuted for reckless driving.

      OTOH if you mean prosecuting people who the government suspects might drive recklessly in the future (Minority Report style?)... it's to imagine how that wouldn't be seen as a loss of freedom.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    136. Re:Someone start a defense fund by SiChemist · · Score: 2

      Wasn't his oath ultimately to uphold the constitution of the United States?

    137. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ImprovOmega · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?

      It would be worth a hundred 9/11 level attacks to preserve our liberties and defend the rights and principles this country was founded on. And one hundred such attacks would *still* be less than two-thirds of the brave American men who gave their lives defending that liberty during World War Two. Man up Nancy.

    138. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You don't uphold the Constitution by pretending that you get to interpret it yourself and then go off on your own and break the law.

      That may be the only way to uphold it sometimes. Though bear in mind that if a law is not constitutional, it is not a real law (though they can still lock you up).

    139. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      The whole program that he exposed was essentially search without warrants on every damn US citizen. That's the fucking crime.

      It might be a sin, but it's not a crime. A crime is when someone does something against the law. What the NSA was/is doing isn't against the law, because Congress passed legislation specifically to ensure that the law permits it.

      It might be unconstitutional, but it will be up to the Supreme Court to rule on that if/when a related lawsuit reaches them.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    140. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you should have even bothered to do that.

      If you're just a normal person who happens to know some people, who as you say, are otherwise quite nice people, then it's extremely unlikely the government would be interested in you.

      Sure, if they had a specific reason for investigating you, it would be something they would look at, but how many people will ever be investigated for anything?

      I'm not suggesting that people should go hog wild with ditching their privacy, but if you actually liked certain people, and you have no real reason to believe that they are actually radicals, you might be self-censoring yourself for no reason.

      The government has capabilities that, as individuals or even small groups, we could never contend with. The thing is, there are so many individuals and small groups that even those capabilities are not even close to being able to monitor normal people, doing relatively normal things, every day.

    141. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once was pulled over on a road where the speed limit was 45mph for doing exactly what my speedometer reported. Later I was passed (as I did 45mph) by a state trooper, over a double-yellow line; he was probably doing 55mph. Pissed, I drove up behind him, honked my horn, fllashed the lights - pulled him over. He asked what the problem was, and I explained that he was speeding. He told me that he wasn't speeding, and got back in his car and left. My brother-in-law is a local cop in our area. I asked him what I could do, and he told me that I could tell the guy's sargent, but that nothing would happen.

      Dunno man. If it's that simple at street-level, then imagine how simple it is in the ivory towers. In times like these, all we can really do is hope to expell this type of mentality from our country. Maybe Gandhi had the right course of action. The government has no power unless the people give them that power - by obeying the rules, despite our own internal moral compass. It all boils down the disolving the spirit behind the hatred, starting with the police, as they're the guys that pull the trigger in the end.

    142. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Geez.. Ya never have mod points when you need them.. Popo has hit the nail RIGHT on the head.. I consider Mr Snowden a national hero. Of course this corrupt government is going to make his life a living hell.. He knows that.. And he went ahead and did the right thing anyway.. Sure, he broke the law, but he did it to bring to light the blatantly UNConstitutional vacumning up of EVERYone's data by the NSA. Apparently, he had access to the "keys to the Kingdom" but ONLY released the one glaring affront to the Constitution. I'll answer Popo's final questions... We will NEVER know the "Who,What, How high..."... I second the "Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden was NOT part of them...."

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    143. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as can be told, the programs in the released material were 100% legal and vetted by Congress and the FISA courts. Perhaps you don't like what happened, but it's not a crime. The only crime here is releasing classified material.

      You may well ask if that is fair, since you consider it morally repugnant, but it is still legal.

      mods, is this really flamebait or did someone think that moderation = opinion again?

    144. Re:Someone start a defense fund by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      King calling for Snowden's head? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case,
      people that live in Ireland shouldn't get involved in the IRA (completely justified in their actions according to King).

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    145. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'd have no problem with me logging every second of your life so when you go up for your next review or face a judge for something you may or may not have done I can bring forth a closet full of evidence to paint you in whatever light I'd like to. Is that the type of world you want to live in? A world where one misstep in your life can be used to frame you or nail you to a wall in another unrelated trial? All it would take is for you to say something like "I wish Johnson were dead" and someone can use that as proof that you wish ill-will on someone even if you said it but didn't really mean it.

      Even if they aren't recording the entire conversation, let's say someone calls your number right before robbing a bank or committing murder. Maybe they got your number off a found cellphone from the person they intend to kill. You are now linked to that person in more ways than random chance. Now, the NSA has a record on you, your tax records (of which I'm sure you lied at least once...) along with a call from this bank robber who you don't even know... now you have to spend a few days answering questions, losing time away from your job/family. Now your entire family is being watched for the next few years waiting for any sizable deposit to flag and bring in for questioning. For what? Because some psychopath decided he wanted to bring down some person and those that may know him?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    146. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.

      That's a charitable reading. I'm sure the intelligence industry would say that it is the fault of Manning, because Manning released the information to people whose competence had not been verified.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    147. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but shouldn't that be the last case, rather than the first case?

      As far as I can tell, this guy didn't try anything else. Perhaps it will come out that he did, but as far as I know, he just decided to up and do this.

    148. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And if a lawsuit can't reach them because it's in the FISA courts, then how is it legal or constitutional?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    149. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
      We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

      No, as an act of civil disobedience, he should be fully exonerated and given candy. More importantly, he broke federal law in a way that makes a bunch of paranoid privacy-seekers feel all squishy and happy for him, so he should be made Absolute Ruler of Earth and be given all the hot girls and lots of money and a pony. Remember, civil disobedience should have no risks involved whatsoever, else it wouldn't be worthwhile!

    150. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Congress and the Supreme Court are a huge part of the Constitution. If they don't work... then the document that is your source of authority is already pretty tattered.

      Point being, the Constitution was written as a framework, but all frameworks need to be fleshed out. That is why they created the legislative branch and allowed us to elect them. If all of Congress and the Supreme Court and a substantial part of the population is in favor of something, then how does that mean that one person gets to decide to personally invalidate a law that was created following the process laid out in that same document which you hold so dearly?

      This is a political question, and that is a question that is supposed to be decided by elections, not loose cannons.

    151. Re:Someone start a defense fund by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      There are some differences. Manning is a private in the US Army and so his rights in a prosecution, and the trial itself, are very different than those of a non-military person.

      As far as the information they leaked and the 'wrongness' of leaking it - Manning was much more indiscriminate in the leaking, and Snowden seems - and claims - to have been more careful in what he released.

    152. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Rep. King is a traitor to everything the U.S. once claimed to stand for. Most members of Congress are obvious scum whose only failing is an inability to betray their constituents as fast and thouroughly as their corporate masters would prefer. But if you think he's ever going to trial you are wrong. Same goes for the rest of the criminal politicans OF BOTH PARTIES and their owners.

      Those in control have set the system up so that the ONLY resolution is going to be revolution. America is heading for an era of violence and blood in the streets. And not just jackboots versus rioters either. What happens when citizens start targeting their rulers with scratchbuilt drones? There will obviously be crackdowns and attempts to ban the tech involved. I have no idea if it will work. How will the elites react when they are exposed to return fire from the proles?

      I wish I could see some other path, but it looks very much like America's elite will never voluntarialy give up their death grip on power and control. So the public is doomed to live in, as the the old saying goes, interesting times.

    153. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Pray tell us all, just how does a phone tap prevent some fuck with a boxcutter breaking a secured door to an aircraft cockpit and flying it into a building?

      By getting him caught and arrested before he gets to the airport... at least that's the intent. I have no idea how effective that might be in practice (and neither do you).

      (Note: I fully support what Snowden did here, and I'm against wholesale government monitoring of communications. But let's not pretend that they are entirely ineffective in countering terrorism either; they probably do help in some cases. Whether they work or not isn't the question, the question is whether they are worth the risks they pose to a free society)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    154. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In my opinion, when you're dealing with the government, the cure is ALWAYS worse than the disease.. I'm FAR FAR more afraid of this government than any terrorist.. Its becoming clear that this government, to "protect" us from terrorism, is becoming a terrorist itself..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    155. Re:Someone start a defense fund by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      It is his fault that the wrong information was leaked. He enabled such a leak by handing over the docs in the first place, and must take responsibility as to how that data was handled after it left his hands. The end result is definitely his responsibility. Right or Wong.

      As far as this leak goes, I do thing they will make an example of this guy, again, right or wrong. I think most who follow what the patriot act did probably assume this was already happening, but I don't think they understood the scope. Having it brought to light is important, but ultimately, I think he should have stayed anonymous.

    156. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Rougement · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. Furthermore, if you're a relative of someone who got murdered by a drone because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the US became a terrorist organization long ago.

    157. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      The fact that the program is actually not even really that bad just makes his future problems seem like a case of unloading a firearm into his foot for no good reason.

      So, spying on every single communication in the US is "not really that bad"? So what kind of program would be bad?

    158. Re:Someone start a defense fund by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Yes - IMO, though, the system that used pretzel-like contortions of logic to pretend this surveillance somehow didn't exceed constitutional limitations was thus already 'corrupt' in the first place.

    159. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret.

      No he didn't! Something that's unconstitutional cannot be classified as Top Secret. Everyone knows this, especially the Supreme Court. That's why the Bush and Obama administrations have done everything they can to avoid a ruling on it.

      The time has come to force a ruling and put an end to the persecution of whistleblowers.

    160. Re:Someone start a defense fund by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no Blue versus Red here. A Republican administration overstepped its bounds in creating this, and a Democrat administration overstepped its as well in continuing - and expanding - it. Legislators of both parties passed the law that enabled it, and legislators of both parties supported the program and allowed it to continue.

    161. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tukang · · Score: 1
      If it's unconstitutional then what the NSA has been doing CERTAINLY is a crime regardless of any other laws that have been passed. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps any other laws:

      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

      The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

      The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

      Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

      A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

      No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    162. Re:Someone start a defense fund by metiscus · · Score: 1

      Agreed, "Don't confuse the nation's security with the regime's security." - RMS

    163. Re:Someone start a defense fund by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BWA HA HA HA HA HA...are you forgetting they actually had a "please stop ignoring us" petition because all Obama ever did with any petition that wasn't just a "We think you are vewwy great and we wuv u!" was give the finger with some pile of bullshit doublespeak speech that was a blatant "I read it and really don't give a fuck because my handlers want this" pile of bullshit?

      Anybody who thinks that petition bullshit is gonna do a damned thing against money and power needs to click their heels together and head back to Oz, fools have been filling those damned things out for years, name ONE real issue that the petition went against what the administration wanted that wasn't ignored, JUST ONE. You can't because it was NOTHING but a cheap publicity stunt.

      Frankly I can't decide which is worse, those that still buy Bush's bullshit or those that still have faith in "yes we can!" (but I won't) because at least with Bush he didn't pretend to give a fuck, so at least he was honest about it, Obama wraps his in touchy feely bullshit while doing the EXACT SAME SHIT, same drone strikes, same spying, same big brother networks, same corporate ass kissing, the ONLY difference is a couple of complete jerk off mechanisms like this stupid petition crap that really ought to be a suggestion box connected to a dumpster for the fat lot of good it does.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    164. Re:Someone start a defense fund by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 1

      Done. Thanks for raising awareness on this.

    165. Re: Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is the law. Since that statement is true, your argument is invalid.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    166. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jury Nullification. Period. If they got me for a juror I sure as hell wouldn't convict him.

    167. Re:Someone start a defense fund by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How could it reach the Supreme Court when no-one knew about it ... until he blew the whistle on the NSA no-one was able to ask the Supreme Court to investigate if it was unconstitutional because it was Top Secret and they were not allowed to know ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    168. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      dangerous to our country.

      It is far more dangerous to our country that the government is secretly watching all of our phone calls.

      This is especially true if he though his acts were illegal

      He knew what the government was doing was completely legal - that's the whole problem.

      His act also sets a dangerous precedent that if others follow could cause real damage.

      If more stuff like this is going on, I certainly hope more people come forward.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    169. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We" should change our system? So, what exactly are you doing to make these changes?

      Posting on Slashdot does not count.

    170. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said... This is the right thing to do. Raising objections over wrong doing doesn't have to involve breaking the law and possibly causing harm. While releasing the documents themselves is certainly more sensational, revealing classified details of the abuse is still illegal (and justifiably so, if it can be shown to cause harm to the American people by being revealed.)

      We don't have enough information yet to know if this was information that actually could have a measurable impact on the safety of the American people and I would love to hear the argument that it does (I personally can't think of one, but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist.) It does also continue to highlight that classification may be used to hide politically inconvenient truths that are most damaging to politician's reputations and bureaucrat's careers than to the American people. I'm not sure how it works now, but perhaps including support of what harm would be done should be a mandatory portion of the classification process along with some independent review of the reasoning and the relevant details that show the risk.

    171. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that

      So...like, negatively bad, since Manning's actions were good? Or do you mean "bad" as in "it's bad for the government to go after legitimate whistle blowers?"

      He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence

      Sure he does: stay out of the U.S. (At least until such time as it is not longer an authoritarian "security" state.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    172. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
      We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

      Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...

      So he hurt the wounded self-importance of people having access to nuclear weapons. This could end much worse than 9/11. If the U.S. feels justified in throwing a nuclear bomb on Hongkong, he'll be responsible for the death of millions.

    173. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, what is right for society is what is granted through consensus.

      Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    174. Re:Someone start a defense fund by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      "The fact that the program is actually not even really that bad"

      That's not a fact. That's your opinion.

      My opinion is that the program violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, usually considered the highest law of the land. It's a touchy subject ("protect the citizens from the terrorists" versus our fundamental right to privacy), which is why I suspect the Judicial branch doesn't want to touch the subject with a ten foot pole, tossing out the earlier lawsuits on a technicality and refusing to make a decision on them.

      I'd also argue that it's the responsibility of citizens and any member of government to actively resist any program that violates the U.S. Constitution. Blowing the whistle is certainly an action of actively resisting. If that makes him a criminal, then there's something wrong with the law.

    175. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing.
      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      Betraying democracy? Funny, I don't remember voting on having all my communications intercepted without cause into perpetuity.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    176. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      So, wait. I thought the super-secret surveillance was the bit that was betraying democracy? huh.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    177. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Go lick the jack-boots of your masters elsewhere.

      The best part about those that defend the pulverization of liberty is that they think they're protecting themselves by getting in the good graces. They think they'll still have their nice suburban home and car. They think they'll have their pension waiting for them during their golden years. Hell, they think they'll still be able to eat anything they would like to whenever they want to.

      In the end, those in power care nothing about them. They wouldn't think twice before sending you and yours down the river. Even those wearing the jack-boots thinking "if you can't beat them, join them" don't realize they're just cannon fodder.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    178. Re:Someone start a defense fund by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      ...All the paranoids and skeptics already strongly suspected that this was the case

      Considering they really were doing this, I wouldn't exactly call it paranoia.

    179. Re:Someone start a defense fund by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yes, unfortunately they edited out the traitors that spied for the US. We should have known who to round up and give a one-way ticket to the US.

    180. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Also could had prevented 1984 or Brave New World dystopias, that could lead to far more innocent victims and less than desirable life for all the rest. If everyone in the world is a virtual slave with no hope of rebellion, surely 9/11 like attacks would hardly happens, but i bet that you won't like that scenario.

    181. Re:Someone start a defense fund by johanw · · Score: 1

      He probably knew already what that board would not do.

    182. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret

      That's not "betraying" democracy, that's DEFENDING it.

      He broke some law. Conflating that with "betraying democracy" is just retarded. You could say that he betrayed the current regime. Whether or not he betrayed the nation is a matter of dispute.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    183. Re:Someone start a defense fund by 0racle · · Score: 1
      There is no chance of this working. The Whitehouse petitions are a theater to let the Whitehouse look caring and connected to the people. It's not in place to get anything done.

      What this does is give the Whitehouse yet another platform to respond to make their case that everything they do to this guy is in everyones best interest. Some people will believe it, some people won't and the world will go in exactly as if it had if no one had signed this petition.

      Even doing something which doesn't have much of a chance to help is better than doing nothing at all

      This is basically never true. This action makes people feel like they have done something without actually doing anything at all. Because they felt like they have acted, they don't feel the need to act any further. Donating just $5 once to the EFF or the ACLU would be actually doing something, funding groups that actually do things. A whitehouse petition is the same as doing nothing at all, but damn if you don't fell like you did something.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    184. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      > That depends on your definition of right.
      > Acting without a common definition is anarchy.

      We have such a framework:

            Common Sense
            The Declaration of Independence
            The Federalist Papers
            The US Constitution.
            Civil Disobedience

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    185. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Zordak · · Score: 1

      The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.

      How so? Manning is the one who gave it to them. If I give a loaded handgun to my five year old, and he shoots and kills a person, is it not my fault? Or is your contention that newspaper reporters (trying desperately to get any edge over the competition) are more trustworthy with sensitive data than a five year old is with a handgun?

      Manning was a punk with a political agenda who recklessly endangered the lives of Americans. Snowden at least did something that could be colorably called civil disobedience. Manning is just a tool. Of course, the problem with civil disobedience is that sometimes you've got to take the hit to make your point.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    186. Re:Someone start a defense fund by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Also, clicking a button on a website is about the most you can expect out of Americans.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    187. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation.
      >
      > Citation please.

      You're really going to go there?

      Try Roe v Wade for a start.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    188. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Being investigated is not retaliation.

      If I say in public that I like to kill people and want to do it again. The cops should probably check on what I have been doing.

      I am pretty sure anti gay marriage groups already do not believe in equal protection under the law.

      That's not for the IRS to decide. If laws are being broken or public safety has been threatened as in your "kill people" example, then it's up the DOJ to investigate, not the IRS. The IRS deals with tax law and punishing those who have cheated on their taxes. None of these groups have been charged with cheating on their taxes. By applying for tax-exempt status, they were actually attempting to follow the law. It was their applications that were scrutinized, not their tax forms.

      Also, there is nothing illegal about wanting lower taxes or protecting traditional marriage. For that matter, it is the traditional marriage groups who are trying to preserve the law as it stands now. Under your criteria, shouldn't pro-gay-marriage groups gain extra scrutiny? You said that the TEA Party groups should get extra attention because they are trying to change the law as it stands? If that is your criteria for extra scrutiny, than any group supporting changes in any policy should be scrutinized, including anti war groups, and anti corporate groups.

        The IRS is not supposed to base it's application of policy based on politics, PERIOD. IRS employees are not allowed to pick and choose which law-changing groups they investigate based on their personal opinions of which laws need to be changed.

      And the retaliation in this case was the IRS delaying the status for years while approving those groups on the opposite end of the political spectrum. You may think it's OK for the IRS to decide the level of investigation groups receive based solely on their political beliefs, but even the President of the United States and the IRS itself disagrees with you. They have both feigned outrage and apologized for the targeting of conservative groups and have sworn investigations to prevent it from happening again (not that it matters as the goal of reelecting Obama has already been achieved).

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    189. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The law is wrong. There's something seriously wrong with a law that says a court can issue a secret order swearing the unwilling party to that order to secrecy, so much so that they can't even challenge it in the courts without running into "state secret" privilege. The people subject to these orders have no recourse. It's "do this or you're violating the law, and, no, you can't challenge the law because revealing the existence of the order would be violating the law". It's utterly ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it is a person or a company subject to it. Something in the law has to change so that there is a public rationalization of these things and some way to challenge them.

      Secrecy is justified in many cases for legitimate reasons, but if the government can sign away people's basic rights by signing orders that declare the matter a state secret, before or after the fact, then there is something wrong. Sure, if I sign up to keep classified material secret and then I violate that agreement, I'm obviously guilty of breaking the law. I made the deal, I have to abide by it. But ordinary citizens didn't sign on to that. If you're watching over a process that violates OTHER people's rights every single day in an unjust and questionably legal process, then I might be tempted to break the law in order to tell the public about it too, because there is a greater violation going on here and no other way to get that fact out to the people.

      For years the government has obstructed many court cases that have attempted to probe exactly what has been going on. Legislators were even willing to change the law so that it retroactively absolved telecommunications companies of any past criminal activities while compelled to implement these programs. Something like this disclosure was bound to happen eventually when every legitimate channel for doing it through the courts was being vigorously blocked. Even if they shouldn't be privy to the operational details, the public has a *right* to know what is going on and to be able to challenge it in *some* forum. If that has to happen because of an illegal disclosure of classified material, well, thank goodness someone had the principles to finally do it after so long, because it doesn't seem legislators or the courts were looking out for the public interest or bothering to consult us about it.

    190. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      What about the end result? Give the government a big hammer and he will see everyone as a potential nail, even a joke, or an accident could put you in the wrong side of the stick.

      And the government is a lot of people, with both clear big money behind bias, and people that could not do what is supposed to do with that information (Snowden is an example working against them, that was uncovered because he wanted to go public, think in others going against you for personal profit not going public).

    191. Re:Someone start a defense fund by furball · · Score: 1

      That's not in code. There are a few ways of things becoming law. The first is that it is in code as a statute. This is from the legislature. The other is from the courts. That's the law in precedent. If you're going with Roe v. Wade then it's in precedent and not code.

      Roe v Wade privacy is in regards to the law interfering with life, liberty, or property. The life in question is the individual's. In other words, medical decision. Privacy of communication is subject to wiretap laws which can be superseded by a court order. Roe v Wade offers nothing for the sort of privacy you're arguing about.

    192. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      After getting all the private photos of your children, some NSA agents surely will think on them.

    193. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. Strictly speaking, warrants are issued every 90 days by the FISA court, so it is not a "search without warrants".

      And that's what is so pathetic. Technically it *is* within the law, and it does have oversight. But approval of that kind of wholesale dragnet makes a mockery of what a warrant is supposed to be: a very specific, targetted infringement of people's ordinary rights because a good case has been made for probable cause during a criminal investigation. It's not supposed to be "Judge X hereby issues a warrant for the search of every person's property and monitoring of their communications in or outside the country for the next 90 days." A warrant like that in the real world would be quickly disputed as the sham that it is, even if it technically made all searches "legal" because they "had a warrant".

      What they are doing is "legal", but only in a perverse way that probably defies the constitution, which we probably would have determined by now if the cases that have attempted to fight this law were allowed to proceed rather than being obstructed at every opportunity on the grounds of "state secrets", or negated by legislators retroactively changing the law.

    194. Re:Someone start a defense fund by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.

      No. That would invalidate the rest of your point and give ammo to his detractors, that he was motivated by something other than the vigilant defense of freedom. The specific, limited release was brilliant because it has no monetary value or specific value to those handful of cave dwellers who so spooked us into destroying ourselves.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    195. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear and cowardice are why he is in HK right now (for the moment). If he were really brave he would have stuck around and submitted to the consequences of betraying his security clearance.

    196. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, clicking a button on a website is about the most you can expect out of Americans.

      Posting some random drivel on slashdot is about the most you can expect out of most people, anywhere.

    197. Re:Someone start a defense fund by executioner · · Score: 1

      or those of us that have followed the former carnivore program, this is just the upgraded system to do the same thing.

      --
      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    198. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be like the government spending TRILLIONS to protect the populace from lightning.

    199. Re:Someone start a defense fund by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      There is no chance of this working. The Whitehouse petitions are a theater to let the Whitehouse look caring and connected to the people. It's not in place to get anything done.

      There is no realistic chance of this working. That is not the same as no chance whatsoever. It may be about the same as the odds of winning the lottery, but it's still non-zero.

      This is basically never true. This action makes people feel like they have done something without actually doing anything at all. Because they felt like they have acted, they don't feel the need to act any further. Donating just $5 once to the EFF or the ACLU would be actually doing something, funding groups that actually do things. A whitehouse petition is the same as doing nothing at all, but damn if you don't fell like you did something.

      In the cases you mentioned, the alternatives are not "do something that probably won't help" and "do nothing at all", they are "do something that probably won't help" and "do something which helps in a small way". Not the same thing at all. If someone was going to donate $5 to an advocacy group, then I can respect saying that this hurts the cause for the case of that person. But if someone was going to do nothing at all, this is still an improvement, however small.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    200. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Congress and the Supreme Court are a huge part of the Constitution. If they don't work...

      Sorry, but did you just wake up from a long nap? Congress has been badly broken for decades, and the SCOTUS is a wretched hive of scum and villainy featuring at least one justice who apparently doesn't believe women are people and one who is a known liar, not to mention Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    201. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      bravo.

    202. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      Sorry for the confusion, but you're talking about the gentleman who greenlit this entire domestic espionage program, I presume?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    203. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be worth a hundred 9/11 level attacks to preserve our liberties and defend the rights and principles this country was founded on

      IIRC, 200X is roughly proportional to Civil War deaths, both sides combined. Of course the population was a lot smaller back then. Scaled up, the modern equivalent is some staggering number I don't recall.

      9/11 was what, 1/10th annual road fatalities. In a more typical year there are what, a few dozen deaths that might be attributed to terrorism, even less if you narrow it to Islamic terrorism.

      9/11 is literally the mouse that scared the Elephant (GOP) into trampling our rights. The Donkey just came along and kept on trampling.

    204. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Also so what if we reduce sentences all the time? Does that make it right there too?

      Sometimes you have to get pragmatic. Your choices in the bank robbery case might be:
      1. Nail one guy to the wall and keep him in prison. He didn't cooperate, so the three accomplices go free.
      2. Work a deal with one guy and put the three accomplices in jail.

      So in one case you have a single bad guy in jail and in the other you have 3 in jail. Sure, you had to compromise your principles a bit, but you'd be foolish not to.

      To extend the analogy, we want to encourage this kind of disclosure. If letting this guy slide encourages more whistle-blowers than I am all for it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    205. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      FISA approvals: 33,900
      FISA rejections: 11

    206. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about saving lives here.

      If those lives are lived under constant surveillance then it's perhaps kinder to let them die. But hey, if you don't mind having a neckbeard at the NSA jerking off to the private pictures your girlfriend sent you, then that is your business.

      If your gf is dumb enough to be sending private pictures via any service out there today, then you're asking them to be looked at.

    207. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's a great place to get ideas, though, isn't it?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    208. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circular reference is not an argument, any "professionals with clearance" would have redacted every word.

    209. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      so by your reading of the Constitution, anything that's approved by Congress is constitutional because the Constitution says congress creates the laws.

    210. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, it still is fun in a dark way to watch them respond. It is also fun to see it get covered in the media. It's also a damn sight cheaper way to get the President's attention than renting buses for protests or hiring a lobbyist.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    211. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      In addition someone should get kickstarter going to pay the research fee and duplication fee for a FOIA to get all of the NSA meta data on our congress critters. We could even have various levels of funding $100,000 all of the US Senators, $110,000 US Senators + Supreme Court Justices, $400,000 the previous + all house members, and $401,000 all the previous + the president. I mean if they have nothing to hide then they should be just fine with the general public getting this info. I'm thinking this would be a giant ultra loud brown note for our government if funded.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    212. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was supposedly approved by the FISA courts.

      And the FISA courts are approved by Congress which is constitutionally prohibited from approving searches without probable cause.

      Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.

      If you know English, you can read the fucking 4th amendment. The Constitution is valid because it was ratified by The People. If The People aren't capable of understanding it, then they aren't capable of consenting to it. Either the Constitution is understandable in plain English by the common person, or it is not valid at all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    213. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NobleSavage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sign petition here

    214. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jasper160 · · Score: 1

      Power corrupts...

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    215. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      once upon a time the bar for Top Secret was you were putting the lives of agents at risk.

      once upon a time.

    216. Re:Someone start a defense fund by SandFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. He is just as guilty as Rosa Parks.

      --
      Contentment is the greatest wealth
      - Sukhavagga Dhammapada
      Contentment is the goal behind all goals.
    217. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      well, I think he might have killed the Easter Bunny, too...

    218. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I've signed and gotten everyone I know to sign. If you give a shit about this country you should to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not under any delusions about him actually getting pardoned... But maybe we can keep him out of a noose.

    219. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      oh god, not them again

    220. Re:Someone start a defense fund by slew · · Score: 1

      Violating your oath of office is a high crime and/or treason...

      Does the buck stop at the top (the president who knew about it could have vetoed it?)

    221. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      anything they haven't been caught doing yet?

    222. Re:Someone start a defense fund by 517714 · · Score: 1

      The law is not wrong. The actions those documents expose, and the classification of the documents in order to prevent the discovery of the abuse are wrong. Those responsible have violated their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and should be dismissed from their positions.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    223. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are people going to understand that there is a difference between being afraid of being caught doing something wrong and being afraid of the PEOPLE that are looking for others doing something wrong?

      History is littered with stories of those empowered to search for subversives abusing their power. Those agents are some of the worst abusers of human rights that this planet has ever known. If you want examples, read about events under the heading "Inquisition", or "Salem Witch Trials".

      Anybody that can seriously use the "if you have nothing to hide ..." defense has not thought it through, has no concept of history or is lazy and/or cowardly.

    224. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can forgive a man for running away from torture.

    225. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      congratulations on your defeat

    226. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Ignorance and laziness are the true enemies of liberty. A healthy fear of your own government is essential for liberty.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    227. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      hey, wait. that sounds like a helicopter...

    228. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Freedom is a nebulous notion, those who defend this kind of action don't exactly see how it affects their freedom. If they don't have anything to hide...

      I think a better way to phrase this is "I will happily trade your fascist fear-mongering for a government that obeys the law". Everyone can understand that a government that doesn't obey the law is a threat.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    229. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am saying if you espouse a political position that correlates with a crime you probably should get a little extra scrutiny.

      I don't think any of these groups should be tax exempt at all. I think that only charities should get that, and they should be required to give away the vast majority of their money to be considered as such.

    230. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total fucking troll.

    231. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they're not tracking you - they're just recording everything. But they don't look at it... that is until you get in their way.
      - contributing to the NSA archive, your hardly Anonymous Coward

    232. Re:Someone start a defense fund by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Both groups want the law changed. I see nothing that says NORML leadership smokes pot. I imagine they would like too, but I would imagine many don't due to the law.

    233. Re:Someone start a defense fund by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Like most decision any government makes? consensus is impossible and many many times even majority is ignored, The majority of people do not want to pay taxes for example no matter what the government says he gives back for them. Their opinions are always ignored in this matter though.

      We have a system that gives a group of person power to decide everything for all the others. No matter who democratically those people are chosen what they do more often than not does not reflect what most people want. That is the main flaw of democracy. True democracy only exists when every decision is made by the results of direct vote, or at the very least every important decision.

    234. Re:Someone start a defense fund by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      So, please, let's hear an argument about why revealing this program is harmful. I'd be interested to hear a good one; because so far I haven't even heard bad ones.

      Okay. You'll probably think this is a bad one - I'm not sure I'd disagree - but it's an argument. WSJ reported that this program intercepted two plots in 2009, including a plot to bomb the NY subway. Now that we've got that out of the way...

      I believe it's the bigger picture that should be considered. Maybe this leak isn't so harmful, but when you sign on to a job like this you say "I won't tell secrets that I'm not supposed to tell". If you can't be trusted with low level secrets, what stops you from throwing out the big ones? Put another way (and you may not agree with this), but some things should be kept secret. There are political considerations, technical considerations, operational considerations, planning considerations. Those all need to be taken into account. Does that mean the people with 25 years of training in making these kinds of assessments will always get it right? No, but they're an awful lot more likely to do so than some random twenty something year old high school dropout with no knowledge of politics, covert operations, or any other inputs.

      I'm bemused by the man's claims that he wanted to do this for the common good (i.e. "I got a conscience"). You don't sign on for a job with a secret security agency whose job involves surveillance and trying to capture bad guys without knowing that, gee, sometimes they're gonna do things that aren't black-and-white "we're the goodies, and those guys are the baddies, no middle zone". Just what sort of jobs did he think the NSA did?

    235. Re:Someone start a defense fund by davester666 · · Score: 1

      He MUST be prosecuted. If we don't do everything we can to him, then others may get it into their head that they can decide that what we have ordered them to do is wrong and violate state secrets.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    236. Re:Someone start a defense fund by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Being investigated is not retaliation.

      Tell that to the friends and family of Aaron Swartz.

      Given the reality that the average American now commits multiple felonies every day, investigation is precisely retaliation. As Paul Craig Roberts explains:

      The criminal justice (sic) system today consists of a process whereby a defendant is coerced into admitting to a crime in order to escape more severe punishment for maintaining his innocence. Many of the crimes for which people are imprisoned never occurred. They are made up crimes created by the process of negotiation to close a case. [...] Prosecutors have lost sight of innocence and guilt. What we have today is a conveyor belt that convicts almost everyone who is charged. [...] A defendant that incurs the prosecutor's ire is certain to be framed on far more serious charges than a negotiated plea.

      Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American commits three felonies per day:

      Silverglate believes that we are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences make it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    237. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, please, let's hear an argument about why revealing this program is harmful. I'd be interested to hear a good one; because so far I haven't even heard bad ones.

      Mostly because it's harmful for people working in compartmentalized roles in such areas to assume they can (never mind should) make a judgement about what should or shouldn't be considered sensitive. There's harm is in making it fashionable to ignore the obligations one takes on when working in a role that can involve the lives of others who work in dangerous settings. The next guy might also be in the "information wants to be free" mode, too, and think that dishing out private keys or credentials or whatever else is just as freedom-loving as dishing out hundreds of thousands of documents you haven't even bothered to read.

      So it's not as much about some guy's anecdote or PowerPoint file shedding marginally more light on telco business record archiving - it's about what it means to take a paycheck from an agency as you promise not to make those kinds of calls on your own, ever.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    238. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 0

      Democrats are not a liberal party. And the Obama administration is far more conservative than the "conservatives" of 20 to 30 years ago.

    239. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Good! If we are doing more crap like this then I hope more do come forward!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    240. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      >

      I am standing up for a Hero was forced into a position where he had to chose between upholding the constitution (the first part of his oath) or following orders (another part of his oath). If he didn't blow the whistle, he would still be violating his oath.

      The problem is in assuming that legality implies legitimacy. Just because a law is passed doesn't make it legitimate. How, can one be in a position of either up holding the Constitution or the 'law'? When in conflict, one must be correct, and the other illegitimate. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it's authority must supersede the other law, otherwise there is no limit to the authority and power of government.

    241. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Rumsfeld used this to justify invading Iraq. Unknown unknowns.

    242. Re: Someone start a defense fund by pellik · · Score: 1

      I think the majority still want everyone else to pay taxes.

    243. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Again, what crime has the TEA Party espoused? The TEA Party is for lower taxes, not tax fraud. What crime has pro-life groups or traditional marriage groups committed? The only "crime" these groups have committed is having an opinion and wanting to use their First Amendment rights. Remember, the First Amendment not only protects speech you disagree with, but it also protects speech that the government disagrees with specifically. Read the text itself:
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

      Isn't that part in bold exactly what the TEA Party groups were trying to do? Opposing groups are allowed to take money and not pay taxes on them. Why can't the TEA Party. If anything, groups that call for higher taxes and then apply for tax exempt status for themselves are the ones who should be viewed with suspicion. There is nothing suspicious about the TEA Party trying to be tax exempt. That is exactly what you would expect them to do. But Organizing for America wants people taxed more. Why would they think that they should be exempt?

      Also, this is not just about taxes and money. It is about protecting your donors from those who disagree with your group. For example, if a list of donors to an anti-gay-marriage group were leaked, the donors, their families, and their businesses could be targeted by groups that support gay marriage. It could happen and it did. The law was created to protect donors to civil rights groups in Alabama during the Civil Rights movement and is just as necessary today.

      And if you don't think that these groups should be tax exempt, that's great. I agree. But that's not the point. The point is that as of right now, these groups are allowed to be tax exempt under the law. If you like, petition for the law to be changed, but until it is, it must be applied fairly. The IRS can not apply the law to one group and not another, especially when the deciding distinction is a groups political beliefs or support of or opposition to policy. Also, the IRS should not be able to give you extra scrutiny because you oppose the tax exempt status of 501c groups, just as they should not be allowed to scrutinize the TEA Party because they want the 10th Amendment followed.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    244. Re:Someone start a defense fund by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      No, he is not. But since you're such a rule of law guy I guess you would agree that the officials that lied to congress and illegally sped on US citizens should "face the consequences".

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    245. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget indifference.

    246. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      He shed light to a certain extent, however the government is trying to also spin this off by saying this was all on the up and up:

      But the dossier, released by the Director of National Intelligence's office, claimed: "PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining programme. It is an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorised by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

      The only wrong doing here was the government using rubber stamp judges, in secret, and not wanting to see any sort of public discourse on the details of these issues. Administration: why can't you just trust the secret panels, the officials in charge of these programs, and the congressmen who were informed!

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    247. Re:Someone start a defense fund by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      This exact same thing happens on your side of the fence, too. Liberals bemoan the 'archaic' conservative viewpoint and how much it hinders their view of a progressive world where the government gives you everything you need to live all the time.

      Know what I think? You're all a bunch of yo-yos. Shut up ya yo-yos. Until you wake the fuck up and realize that there aren't only two options out there, we are going to be stuck in this ridiculous slap fight in which we accomplish nothing. Liberals and Conservatives are both sides of the exact same coin and they have a vested interest in keeping us going back and forth at each others' throats. The longer they do this, the more people lose focus of the fact that the government is supposed to be an extension of the people's will. Instead, we have more liberties taken away, more power bestowed upon the governing 'class', and more politicians sipping tea in their white towers thinking about how great it is to be the king.

      Grow up. You might as well be arguing Santa Claus vs the Easter Bunny for how effective either of them are at running the country.

    248. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government does not get the right to stamp " TOP SECRET " on any old document they want. Especially if it is done to cover up the evidence of illegal actions on their part.

      In other words, you don't get to use the classification system as a means to avoid prosecution for your crimes.

    249. Re:Someone start a defense fund by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      And the counsel would likely determine this in voir dire and so you would not be chosen as a juror.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    250. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to accept several 9/11 attacks if it means I get to keep my freedom and privacy. Besides, I don't live anywhere terrorists want to attack.

    251. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I can't have absolute freedom I should accept none?

    252. Re:Someone start a defense fund by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.

      That is such a fucking cop-out. The Constitution is supposed to represent the will of the people and our consent to be governed by a government of our construction. If the whole thing is subject to weasely reinterpretation and is held as beyond the comprehension of mere citizens (even though it is written in plain English and starts, "We the People..."), then this whole system is a sham.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    253. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I don't really giva a shit if it is legal or not. It needed to be brought to light so the public can decide how they feel about it and make laws accordingly.

    254. Re:Someone start a defense fund by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's a HUGE difference between Bradley Manning and this guy, the largest being that one is military and the other is not. Manning gets tried in a military tribunal, not a civil court. That alone is going to change everything from a legal perspective, if not a moral perspective.

      Secondly, even Bradley Manning is only looking at 20 years in the worst case, from a military tribunal. I don't know where you got the idea of 'life sentence.'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    255. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      How do you get people to overthrow an unconstitutional law, when you can't talk about how the law is being used unconstitutionally without being accused of treason?

    256. Re:Someone start a defense fund by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

      Got to do it before the drone strikes on that Hong Kong hotel start.

    257. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they try to prosecute him, let's hope he makes that argument.

    258. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      Or young ones texting while driving.

    259. Re:Someone start a defense fund by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Arguably, /no/ government has earned that level of trust.

      And more specifically, over the last decade, and last few years, our government has demonstrated very clearly in multiple ways that it CAN'T be trusted.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    260. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      On behalf of all of the suffering people in North Korea, you sir are a tool. You have just belittled the pain and suffering of millions of people. People who are held captive by their government. People who grew up in prison for the crimes of their grandparents.

      To refute your point about not being able to paint your house red...Zoning laws do not cover the color of a house. Having said that, there are some people who have HOA rules that restrict the colors that can be used. If you CHOOSE to live in an area covered by a HOA, you're responsible for the rules and regulations that you are CHOOSING to agree to. If you want the freedom to paint your house red, than you can CHOOSE to live in an area that is not covered by a HOA, or go through the HOA process and attempt to have the HOA rules changed. The important point here is that it was your choice to buy a house covered by a HOA. Just like it's your choice to live in the city, state, and country that you currently live in. If I don't like the USA and it's police state aspects, I can choose to move to Sweden, Argentina, or wherever the else I choose to live.

    261. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BoberFett · · Score: 0

      I wish you were correct, but the word "liberal" changed long ago. Instead of supporting LIBERty, modern American "liberals" are all about massive cradle to grave nanny government, in which this type of spying and control over the citizenry is to be expected.

      The hippies that protested Vietnam and the man have long since been replaced by "liberals" that fear freedom and want everything tightly controlled. (Except for marriage and abortion, those are separate topics)

    262. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      When you let your wildest fears direct your policy, you can justify almost anything.

      If we only had Jetpacks, than we could stop 9/11 attacks by sending rocket soldiers to intercept the planes! Also, if we gave the Jetpacks to everyone, if there was ever a school shooting in process, all of the kids could run outside and fly away.

      In other words, I want a damn jetpack now!

    263. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im not defending it, Im saying that non-lawyers probably shouldnt make declarations about what is and isnt legal because they probably have no factual basis for doing so.

      "Legal" is generally what the courts say it is.

    264. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to weigh in on snail mail. Ever since the poison letter attacks, the larger mail facilities were forced to purchase huge multi-million dollar machines. This giant machine sniffs (for poisons), scans, does some OCR, barcodes every single piece of mail through it. It records where and when a piece of mail was at a particular time, so they can notify their workers in case they've been exposed to something bad.

      It would be trivial to just send this information on to the NSA. After all, this information is just metadata. It doesn't harm anyone, does it?

      Sound familiar?

    265. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      In which case the petition is simply further evidence that the Obama administration is as corrupt as the one before it and therefore still serves a purpose.

    266. Re:Someone start a defense fund by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Power attracts the corrupt.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    267. Re: Someone start a defense fund by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Every single research made about the subject says otherwise. Most people only care if others are paying taxes if they have to pay taxes too. It is all about fairness. If you have to pay your taxes you want everybody else to do the same. But give a person the option to not do that and the condition that nobody else will either and most people will take it.

    268. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ever since Marbury vs Madison, the law is what the courts say it is. Perhaps you should brush up on your history.

      You can argue that judicial review is nonsense, but the problem is the only way to overturn it would either be through the supreme court or through an amendment.

    269. Re:Someone start a defense fund by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      How would the prosecutor determine this? By raising the subject of jury nullification or by spooky action-at-a-distance psychic powers? People who know about jury nullification would generally also know it is not a subject to raise during voire dire. Even if asked directly the person planning to vote their conscience may lie about it in voire dire as a means to the end of the greater good.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    270. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If the whole thing is subject to weasely reinterpretation

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

      Someone didnt take civics class. Judicial review means that the courts-- more specifically, one court-- does have that power.

    271. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 1

      Why they should care, isn't a pertinent question. They have already demanded of Verizon a domestic call log. Apparently, they in fact, do care.

      --
      Crimey
    272. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

      People should not forget that the Nazis came to power via a democratic process. Germany's previous "administrations" had passed laws designed to protect its citizens at the expense of privacy but, like ours, with no checks against abuse. The Nazis found it quite easy to use those laws to their advantage and transform their democracy to a tyranny. IOW, if we pave the way for tyranny, tyranny is exactly what we'll get.

    273. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent deserves more than +5

    274. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    275. Re:Someone start a defense fund by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he was wrong period. He exposed classified information and that's against the law and dangerous to our country. If he had such a moral issue with what was going on he should have used whatever internal chain of command to make his issues known. This is especially true if he though his acts were illegal - use the chain of command and report it INTERNALLY. Exposing this information was a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. His act also sets a dangerous precedent that if others follow could cause real damage.

      It's clear that there was no chain of command to make his issues "known" when the president himself along with most (all?) of congress knew about the surveillance and thinks its just fine and we should all just shut up because it's been going on for years. And he may very well have tried to follow the normal chain of command only to have his issues dismissed because the surveillance was authorized by the Patriot act, so it was perfectly legal (whether or not it was morally wrong).

      When there's no way to make your issues known to the people it affects (i.e. citizens of the USA), what other choice did he have to make the issues known?

    276. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Yes, but those didn't violate Americans' rights.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    277. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still as relevant as ever: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2961#comic

    278. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The Constitution doesn't allow for secret courts either, so still don't care.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    279. Re:Someone start a defense fund by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      A citizen is not in a position to judge the law? Are you serious? Lawyers can know the finer points of the law, but saying it is their exclusive domain is foolish.

      --
      Good-bye
    280. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Liberals and conservatives are not both sides of the same coin. Not at all.

      You are confusing republican and democrat with conservative and liberal. The truth is that both democrats and republicans are conservative. Both are the enemy of America, the nation founded on liberal ideals.

    281. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Hatta · · Score: 1

      the problem is the only way to overturn it would either be through the supreme court or through an amendment.

      Or a long overdue revolution.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    282. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And until this guy released that all Verizon users were subject to it, nobody had standing. So how is it up to the Supreme Court when nobody can get it there?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    283. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And according to that same Constitution, Congress is not allowed to set up secret courts...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    284. Re:Someone start a defense fund by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      Who were they? What were their names? How high did the chain of command go? When will there be a trial? How many dozens of people (or hundreds?) will be serving 20 year sentences?

      I think you'll find your answers by looking at how many of the bankers and wallstreeters that caused the panic and crash were prosecuted and went to jail (read:none). Not only did they get away with it, but now they are rewarded as "too big to fail" so they're free to do it again with impunity.

      There are two levels of justice:

      • If you're rich, we're spying on you, we know what you did and we approve (it was a stroke of genius and we're going to use it to get rich as well).
      • If you're poor, we're spying on you as well (you didn't know this because you're a fucking moron who can't seem to get rich), we know what you did and, well ... heh ... haha ... AhHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA ... talk to the judge.
      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    285. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that following any law that is unconstitutional is still unlawful as the constitution is to be the highest 'law of the land'.

    286. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He did go up the chain of the command. If we are indeed still a democracy then the people are the highest authority and ought to have a right to know what its government is doing.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    287. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something that's approved by congress actually went through a "constitutional" process, and is subject to the checks and balances that go with that process.

      That may not be enough for perfection, but it certainly follows the letter and spirit of the document better than some random guy deciding all by himself that a constitutionally passed law is null and void because he does not like it.

    288. Re:Someone start a defense fund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Praying may have more chance. Obama might be more likely to listen to God than to this petition.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    289. Re:Someone start a defense fund by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      You cant set a precedent that "if you THINK what youre doing is right then you can ignore 'top secret'".

      Why not? Is the sky going to fall? Also what if what you are doing really is right? Objectively I mean. It doesn't get much more clear cut than in this case. A tyranny violating the rights of its citizens.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    290. Re:Someone start a defense fund by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      If you think that, you underestimate the ability of government to fuck over your rights to give the appearance of being tough on [your group of do-no-gooders here]

      Out here in Canada, several provinces have highly excessive traffic laws. It's entirely possible to be fined up to $5000, lose your license and have doubled insurance and licensing rates for the next decade when you get the license back in a year. Of course, you won't need your license because you'll have lost your job that you can no longer get to, your home that you can no longer make mortgage payments on, your ability to be with family and friends, your ability to have a life, all because ... uh, your tires spun in the wet or needed to get to a specific hospital to save your newborn child's life when the ambulance wasn't an option (seriously read that, officers Retard and Bumblefuck nearly committed murder to enforce traffic law).

      Yeah, that's totally fair and reasonable. Be careful what you wish for.

    291. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Foridin · · Score: 1

      Eh, don't count on it. He still hasn't responded to the Aaron Swartz petition, which hit the needed number back in early 2013.

    292. Re:Someone start a defense fund by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It would be like the government spending billions to protect the populace from lightning.

      They did. It's called building codes and lightning rods. It didn't give anyone billions in kickbacks though, and it was an effective solution, so it doesn't count. Oh wait, I mean it's government intrusion into our personal freedoms. Yeah, that.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    293. Re:Someone start a defense fund by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You may go in front of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees and discuss it. They are cleared for that. If the NSA was lying to Congress, he could have... gone to Congress with that.

      Now if Congress failed to act, I would start to see his point. Then again, the stuff he considered to be a problem? You look at it and it looks like... intelligence gathering. It's not pretty and sometimes citizens are involved, but generally that doesn't impact the citizens. Congress might well have decided that he was an idiot, or declined to consider it a problem. Then he'd have a real choice to make, but I'd certainly see him in a different light if he actually put this in front of a committee before he went nuclear.

    294. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      The more egregious the crime, the greater the efforts made to hide the crime. If it's Top Secret, you know it's pretty bad.

    295. Re:Someone start a defense fund by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Judicial review need not be the same as "weasely reinterpretation". In fact, it's interesting that you bring up Marbury v. Madison, because it's an excellent example of Constitutionality in an age when the Tenth Amendment still meant something. The weasely reinterpretation that passes for judicial review these days presuppose that any power not specifically barred by an amendment is allowed to be taken by the federal government. Marshall's court recognized that the court did not have a power that wasn't specifically delegated to it. His court would not be a friend of the contemporary US government.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    296. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      No, that's called authoritarianism, not anarchy.

    297. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It was a crime to expose said crime.

    298. Re:Someone start a defense fund by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      "I think the program is far more limited than most foaming at the mouth posters believe"

      A secret court issuing secret warrants to get records of whom everyone talks to on the phone, for how long, and where they are seems sufficiently "limited" to you?

      "The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy"

      Why? Because you disagree with whatever you think their politics are?

      "The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well"

      You're awfully trusting and advocating of a Big Brother - like government.

    299. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing.
      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      Here is the thing the guy signed a document saying that he would protect classified information which he did not, that is a crime. The guy also signed a document saying he would protect the constitution which he may be able to argue he did by becoming a whistle blower. I this the constitutionality of this law is upheld this guy is fucked but overturned he would be protected.

      This guy may have signed a contract but there is a limit to the amount of immoral crap you should be forced cover up because you signed a piece of paper. I suppose he found his limit, let's hope fate is kinder to him than Bradley Manning. If I recall correctly the United States even helped to write the book on this subject about half a century ago... something about nobody being obligated to obey immoral orders no matter what agreements they have signed or what oaths they have taken... It is interesting to see how this applies to some people but not others.

    300. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horseshit. Their charter includes foreign and domestic operations.

    301. Re:Someone start a defense fund by cfsops · · Score: 1

      Assuming he ends up in U.S. custody at some point, since the Executive branch could, via the "Patriot" act, simply declare him to be a terrorist, revoke his citizenship and toss him into a cage at Guantanamo, I'm not sure what good a "fund" would do.

    302. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I this the constitutionality of this law is upheld this guy is fucked but overturned he would be protected.

      That's the thing; it's not a law, it's a program. A private program set up by and for the NSA. If the program is upheld as constitutional and part of the NSA's duties, then he's screwed. Honestly, with our treatment of whistleblowers, he's probably screwed even if it's found unconstitutional.

      I told somebody else where I believe that if you think it's important enough, you should blow the whistle, but when it comes to this stuff you should do it while being aware that there WILL be serious negative consequences to your life.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    303. Re:Someone start a defense fund by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      We're in the business of saving lives, Matthew. That's a responsibility we have to take pretty seriously.
      --A. Patriot

    304. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The difference is that young drivers get better, while elderly drivers keep declining. Personally, I'm still hoping for self-driving vehicles.

      One of the things I've heard about is that when states increase the minimum driving age they experience a decline in accidents for roughly the duration they increase the age by - go from 14 to 16? Two year decline in accidents caused by youth. But then the ones who would have been driving at 14 start hitting 16, and the accident rate for 16 year olds increases to almost the 14 year old level.

      Better way to decrease accidents? More training to get a license, period.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    305. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BigTunaTim · · Score: 1

      The founders swore an oath to the King of England too. Sometimes, out in the real world, things aren't as black and white as we'd like them to be.

    306. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is sort of the whole point of some protests. If the government does nothing your actions end up being worthless. Ie, in the civil rights era the violent reaction against the protesters was what woke up the rest of the country into seeing head on the injustice that existed. If the government had done nothing more than slap some civil fines onto people breaking Jim Crow laws then likely nothing would have changed. That was the whole genius of Gandhi as well, to submit passively to the retaliation so that the rest of the world can see clearly who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

      In this case, if the government fails to prosecute and does nothing, the whole issue will fade away with no changes. This is probably the reason why Snowden went public.

    307. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me one of my favorite quote :
      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    308. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking like they are somehow different parties.

    309. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you be out installing spycams in toilets or something?

    310. Re:Someone start a defense fund by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Not if it's unconstitutional.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    311. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      OTOH if you mean prosecuting people who the government suspects might drive recklessly in the future (Minority Report style?)... it's to imagine how that wouldn't be seen as a loss of freedom.

      It happens though. See laws about 'in actual control' with respect for DUI. They've prosecuted people for things like sleeping in the back seat when they have the car keys in their pocket. New Mexico recently overturned that, reasoning that it actually encourages drunks to drive home, as there's less chance of being caught compared to sitting in a parking lot for ~8 hours until they sober up. It's still law of the land in at least 12 states though, so yeah.

      Note: "actual physical control" was originally intended to allow law enforcement to penalize people who actually did drive, but the police did not catch them driving - such as they had been in an accident, passed out on the side of the highway, or made it to their destination.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    312. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?"

      Because the poster you are replying to, is paid by the gov to spread the idea that this is "controversial".

    313. Re:Someone start a defense fund by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      I think there's a difference between enforcing the law and protecting it. For example the DEA's job is to enforce laws; it is NOT up to them to ensure those laws stay on the books even when the majority of the population is in disagreement with it. They should be dedicating zero of their resources to that task because that would be a blatant conflict of interest.

      If people want to organize to protest the drug laws the DEA has ZERO business infiltrating the group and/or smearing them publicly.

    314. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would alienate the only people who vote.

      Why do you think DUI laws get tougher and tougher, yet "driving while elderly" has basically zero consequences?

    315. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And submissive reactionnaries

    316. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly there should be a law that states that if somebody breaks the letter of the law by upholding the spirit of the law, then they should go free.

      In a just society, there should be no automatic jail time, if if he released classified information. There should be a *public* jury that would determine if he was trying to follow the spirit of the law.

    317. Re:Someone start a defense fund by troff · · Score: 1

      That debate appears to have already been concluded. The debate now seems mostly about how to push forward what is right, rather than let your elected government, the premiere power of your land, run roughshod all over people using the very same rules that are supposed to prevent them doing just that; how to make the laws/crimes match what's right/wrong.

    318. Re:Someone start a defense fund by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Which is what my second sentence is alluding to.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    319. Re:Someone start a defense fund by troff · · Score: 1

      Why, exactly, is the NSA planning to invade parts of America?

    320. Re:Someone start a defense fund by ArghBlarg · · Score: 1

      I sincerely wish I could add my vote to this petition but I'm Canadian.

      Not that living in Canada means I, and everyone I know, probably hasn't been swept up in this sweeping surveillance. I'm sure all of our traffic is being hoovered up just the same.

      --
      ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
    321. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy, as a system, has been "corrupt" for some time now.

      Nixon, Clinton and let's not forget Reagan all provide wonderful examples.

    322. Re:Someone start a defense fund by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I don't know, call me weird but I prefer honesty, I find it sad to see those people hanging onto this false hope and expecting THIS time, this time it will be different...it reminds me of those battered wives that keep buying the "Oh I've changed" bullshit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    323. Re: Someone start a defense fund by xiando · · Score: 1

      Having your own government carry out a false-flag terrorist attack to remove your liberties is never worth anything. As for the ridiculous "And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?" comment in parent post.. no, spying on citizens will not prevent your government from carrying out false-flag attacks, specially when the goal of those false-flag attacks is to remove civil liberties & start wars.

    324. Re:Someone start a defense fund by houghi · · Score: 1

      We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    325. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have no idea of the ironclad penalties you agreed to when you sign a security contract, do you? This dope ruined his entire life, and not one of you bleeding hearts will remember him in a year.

    326. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... secret programs are beyond court review ...

      Remember, all of congress demanded secret laws. Not one congress critter asked where that would lead. Today, how many of them demand an audit of FISA/NSA? Normally, congress limits an inquiry to one crime and no-one goes to jail. I doubt that will possible with this debacle, so an inquiry or court trial must be avoided.

    327. Re:Someone start a defense fund by JaiWing · · Score: 2

      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

      Q.E.D.

    328. Re:Someone start a defense fund by JaiWing · · Score: 1

      I am repeating myself here, but
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    329. Re: Someone start a defense fund by stanIyb · · Score: 1

      you have no idea of the ironclad penalties you agreed to when you sign a security contract, do you?

      I don't really care.

      and not one of you bleeding hearts will remember him in a year.

      And you know this how? You don't; you're most likely just a troll.

    330. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think any 'terrorist' will be using anything other than burn phones, stolen phones, and no phones from now on? This basically gives away one of the few tactics the government had at figuring out who is associated with who. What if a gang or drug cartel moved in and started killing the competition, do you think it would be useful to know who the low level people were calling, and then who the middle guys were calling?

      And yes, there are ways to report classified info like this without going to the press and giving the details to the enemies of the state (both domestic and foreign).

    331. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      People keep voting for the best politicians, so...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    332. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

    333. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure he signed an agreement not to disclose the information he was handling. If he had an issue with agreement or the nature of the information, he should have quit or not started in the first place, If he has signed such an agreement & has violated the conditions, he has broken the law & should be prosecuted

    334. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy.

      With defenders like you, your so-called democracy is *so* doomed.

    335. Re:Someone start a defense fund by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Well said. And I expect that since Snowden has apparently "gone missing" in Hong Kong, it wouldn't surprise me much to find out that the Obama administration has continued Bush's fine tradition of extra-legal rendition so he can be spirited off to Guantanamo or to some other undisclosed prison in Eastern Europe.

      For those posters in this thread who have been baying for Snowden's blood, I would be interested to hear of any morally justifiable reason for security services to act in such a reprehensible manner.

      As for your President, I once entertained high hopes for his conduct (before his election, and on the principle that he couldn't be much worse than Bush). So much for that. But at least I didn't have high expectations, given that Obama was (a) a very wealthy lawyer and (b) a politician.

    336. Re:Someone start a defense fund by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry, not buying it, that is a "blame the victim" excuse and any investigation shows it just doesn't hold water. Even though I'm as anti libertarian as they come (I personally believe libertarians come in two flavors, one that wants a government to whip the slaves and the other wants to have no government so they can hire goons to whip the slaves) look up "Jon Stewart Ron Paul" to see just how rigged our primaries are, in that video Stewart (who is also not libertarian) shows clip after clip of the MSM practically jumping through flaming hoops to make sure NOBODY says a damned word about Paul, the entire MSM went to great pains to make sure he was never heard. One reporter even gets annoyed and says to the anchor "We are sitting here going on and on about Christie and Palin, who aren't even running, and we haven't said a word about Paul who is doing well in the polls here" and the anchor I swear looks right at the camera, gets a douchebag smirk, and says "If you get any footage of Christie or Palin send it in, you can keep the Paul stuff", I swear the rigging was THAT bad, and when you add in the Alex Jones video showing the voice vote against Paul at the RNC had the teleprompter showing the results before the vote was even called?

      So I'm sorry but saying "the people chose" is like saying that if they show up to enough matches pro wrestling will become real...its not gonna happen, the results are decided before you ever get into the booth, your "choice" is corporate shill A or B and that is all you will EVER get because the two party system? Its just a sham,it lets the old money interests keep taking more for themselves while giving the illusion that the masses have a say when the "choice" is whether you'd prefer your mugger to wear the wildflower or sandalwood aftershave while they rob you.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    337. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what is right for society is what is granted through consensus.

      Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.

      You aren't listing "human rights". Try reading the Constitution for once instead of just waving it around.

    338. Re:Someone start a defense fund by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      This. You miss all the shots you don't take.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    339. Re:Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ^ THIS! ^ People need to get it through their thick heads that there is no left-right paradigm any longer, and has not been for quite a long time. They may call themselves Democrat or Republican but they are on the same team. That team does not play for the Citizens of the USA any longer.

      Media keeps telling you about the left-right though, and doing anything they can to keep people away from the truth in how bad shit really is. CNN disgusted me this morning (in a waiting room, I had to watch). They had "experts" telling us how Snowden committed treason, but no counter opinion. A good number of people still believe everything that main stream media is fact, and not brainwashing garbage. Curious to see if this and Manning starts to wake more people up.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    340. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you mean it wouldn't risk loss of freedom except to unsafe/elderly drivers.

      And you, if I choose to describe you as belonging in one of those categories.

    341. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't feel comfortable letting my FRIENDS have access to this kind of information, let alone complete strangers who actually have the power to lock me up indefinitely without trial for some nebulous classification like "terrorism". And the best part is, they don't even have to tell you why.

      Do we need new memes now? In corporatist Amerika, government watches YOU! Or is it fascist? I remember as a kid it was all about how much better we were than the Soviet Union because of our freedoms. Yet here we are doing the same exact things we ridiculed them for.

      We didn't do this crap when when we had that 800 lbs gorilla glaring at us with a fist full of nukes, but for some reason now it seems like our elected officials are climbing over each other to be the first to wipe their ass with the Constitution because a few fanatical wingnuts might try to kill a couple people with pressure cookers? For fuck's sake, we kill more of our fellow citizens BY OURSELVES each year than the combined total of terrorists attacks. You want a real terrorist? Heart disease. That crazy bastard kills a million people each year. Where's the trillion dollar bio-industrial complex to take on that freakin' terrorist?

      I think perhaps the populace has kind of lost sight of what this country is supposed to be.

      --
      ~X~
    342. Re:Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You need to change your signature unless you are simply playing advocate.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    343. Re:Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stop making stuff up, wholly shit it's easy to read his dossier. He was at the contracting company for 3 months before fleeing to Hong Kong and releasing. Prior to this job, he was a computer security person at the CIA, and prior to that a security guard at a Government agency. Who knows what he was doing at the CIA, but he was not there long and not a Guru. Look at the work experience! Before being a security guard, he was in the US Army and released because he broke both legs in an accident.

      If your opinion is based on a lie, well... shame on you for not checking basic facts.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    344. Re:Someone start a defense fund by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Did you know that a bit of history and logic can make someone's head explode? That's why we don't teach this to kids in school any more. It's not ROTE damnit!!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    345. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all rang out in rapid succession, and then there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer:
      "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"

    346. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
      "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
      "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
      P. 55 (p. 46 in Simon & Schuster 2004)

    347. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good answer comrade davester666. We are glad to see that the education system and propaganda system is working. As long as you remain useful to us, you will continue to have food and transportation to and from your appointed work area.

    348. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm calling bullshit. This man only goes to prison of the people collectively allow it to happen. If your attitude is "oh well, he's screwed" then that makes you part of the problem.

    349. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the American people were to, say, all get so pissed that they all ran into D.C. and shook the buildings, then you'd be right, and everyone would understand why you're right. However, since the people of America are better at fucking with their "smart" phones, than they are at raising their kids, you can hardly expect many to muster up the ambition to get mad at anything, as they've been taught for so long that getting mad is bad.

      When people don't give a shit about their rights, then they go away, and never get replaced with anything. Watch some older movies, movies from the 80's. Watch how the characters interact with each other, and how weird it seems from today's world perspective. In fact, we're all out of movie ideas because of how limited we are in our way of thinking, and we don't even notice it.

    350. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing.
      Seriously, this guy is a criminal and should face the consequences of his actions.

      Well, remember that Hitler was democratically given powers trangressing the constitution with a parliament-consigned Ermächtigungsgesetz purporting to address problems of national importance, in a similar manner to the PATRIOT act, and things went downhill from there.

      People hiding away jews were betraying democracy. They were criminals and quite often faced the consequences of their actions.

      Torture is fine when pulling the "national security card". Warrantless detention without judicial oversight for decades. Selectively killing your own citizens. A secret police force not under governmental control.

      And an "upright" citizenship applauding everything that the government does, and calling for punishment of anybody who disturbs its trashing of the constitution and of democratic values in the name of nationalist interests.

    351. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Thing is, I agree with you. But people (your "victims") actually seek this shit out. People actually watch these horrible news programs because they want their own beliefs echoed back to them. You get far more neutral journalism from Al Jazeera then from any major American news network, and that's just sad - but they know how to pander to the "victim".

      I mean, it's no accident that the very funny Jon Stewart gets all this free material handed to him every single day. It's a byproduct of the different groups the major networks pander to... it's a never-ending stream of bullshit, and we reward them.

      I just listened to this podcast about the "Free State" movement, and I was a bit surprised to hear that the two Free State legislators ran not on Libertarian tickets, but Democrat and Republican tickets. They said they did this because that way they get an "automatic" 30% of the vote. Amazing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    352. Re:Someone start a defense fund by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... you don't get to use the classification system as a means to avoid prosecution for your crimes.

      Huh? Has it ever been used for anything else? Can you present the evidence?

      In pretty much all the cases I've ever read about, a "whistleblower" who reveals "secrets" has always been exposing government wrongdoing. All the (publicly released) evidence seems to support the conjecture that the only actual function of government security is to hide criminal activity (usually but not always against their own citizens). If you believe it's ever used for anything else, maybe you could give us links to the evidence ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    353. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly how this started, you suggest one thing then it ends up being a law, now you take away peoples abilities to drive, and they will have to undergo a drivers test, which will not be by any means free (a fee for having to take the test, probably extra fees for the license which will only be good for a year because that is how they will redo the driving laws) you give a suggestion and it is twisted into ridiculous laws.

      And yes I can read what your saying, this man did its citizens a favor, what favor would that be? Already exposing a program that has been in place for a decade, it is now cemented in place, and no matter how much citizens complain about it they will pass newer programs under there noses and this will continue to go on for the remainder of our lives.

      Is it worth the time and effort to go after him, NO, because it has been leaked for the last 10 years via the press/media about suspected activity involving the usual suspect agencies within government. It is not like him coming out and saying something was any surprise. But the government doesn't seem to care, if it comes from one of theres they want to make an example out of him, warning any others if they caanot keep there mouths shut they will face prison time. And who else knows what other crap they will charge them with, or convict them on to destroy there lives.

    354. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say paranoids like it's a bad thing... some of us have been bitching about this shit for years...

      nobody fucking reads books anymore.

      george orwell's 1984; should be required reading for the masses

    355. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

    356. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...uhm...because by definition a whistleblower is someone who brings to light previously unknown information (secrets) because that information will expose wrongdoing?

      "All secrets exposed by whistleblowers have described wrongdoing" does not equate to "All secrets describe wrongdoing". It does not guarantee that the remaining secrets do /not/ describe wrongdoing, but your argument is a basic "All oranges are fruit therefore all fruit are oranges" class of logical error.

      Again, I'm not saying that the remaining secrets aren't covering wrongdoing, just that your reasoning is bunk.

    357. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think unconstitutional spying is far more betraying democracy than releasing some information. Democracy without an informed populace cannot work.

      Democracy is the legitimization of an autocratic administration by voting farces. Since one cannot swap out qualified personnel every five years or change long-term plans on such small time scale, it is important for a working democracy that the illusion of power being in the hand of (rather fickle) people is kept on a superficial level. No political system has proven to be as stable as making people believe they are responsible for their own government.

      Whistleblowers disturb the impression of democratic rule and thus promote anarchy by the people. Democracy with an informed populace is unstable and unreliable.

    358. Re: Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....aaaaaand BINGO! I mean, GODWIN!

    359. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether he was aware or not, the "Commander In Chief" is ultimately responsible.

    360. Re:Someone start a defense fund by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Today's Democrats are far from being a liberal party and Obama is a moderate at best. The whole political spectrum in the US is skewed so far to the right that our "liberals" are considered conservative by the rest of the world's standards. Voting third party never gets anywhere because the entire system is designed to exclude third parties.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    361. Re:Someone start a defense fund by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that the oath he swore on the one hands prohibits him from disclosing top-secret information and on the other hand compells him to disclose it.

    362. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?

      fear and cowardice. These are the true enemies of liberty.

      Never attribute to fear and cowardice what can be attributed to indifference.

    363. Re:Someone start a defense fund by readingaccount · · Score: 1

      Dude, stop reminding me about my experiences with Linux. It's taken over a decade before I've finally started to recover from the constant Windows -> Linux -> Windows cycle and distro hopping. The wounds are still healing damnit!

    364. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but why did you capitalize "hero" -- did your elementary school not teach the basic capitalization rules for our language?

    365. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy is the thing that betrays us as humans. Ass hole.

    366. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fewer

    367. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't pardon someone unless they're convicted. Can't convict someone unless they go on trial. Don't have to put them on trial if they're designated enemy combatants.

    368. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

    369. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I think there's some debate about what the law actually approves and what's being done. I hear a lot that you have to have a warrant to do some of this stuff, but then I hear a lot of just blanket surveillance of everything. I haven't been able to get clarity on what exactly the government can do. But yes I agree with your statement, if the government is just being "Big Brother" and monitoring everybody then that is completely wrong.

    370. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Can't pardon someone unless they're convicted.

      Not true. I suggest you Google for the Iran/Contra scandal with Duane R. Clarridge and Caspar W. Weinberger.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    371. Re:Someone start a defense fund by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Woosh. Did you miss my second sentence?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    372. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he does have a chance to avoid it, if he can get asylum in another country. Unfortunately, it is hard to find a country that won't bow down to the US, and even if he did succeed, what is to stop the CIA from black bagging him.

      It's disgusting when the CIA has forgotten that this is not the soviet union and they are not the KGB.

    373. Re:Someone start a defense fund by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      It is far more dangerous to our country that the government is secretly watching all of our phone calls.

      Yes, it is far more dangerous. If you question that let me ask you which was more dangerous to the German people, the jews, or their descent into the NAZI regime? Which was more dangerous to the American people in the 1950's, communist infiltrators or their own
      rampant warmongers? And in a directly comparable scenario, what was more dangerous to the Russian people, their costly wars and suppression or CIA spies? The Russians certainly traded the happiness of their citizens to route out spies, but how did they fare in the end? America, on the other hand, while going through a period of communist witch-hunts (not wholly unjustified) and expensive quagmire wars, gave up on those endeavors and the hippies won. And by and far we came out the better for it.

      So yes, our government illegally spying on all of it's citizens is vastly more dangerous than any supposed terrorists they were trying to catch. Terrorism isn't that big of a threat. All we have to fear is fear itself. And while the absolute terror that was inflicted more than a decade ago caused a hit to the stock market, and a minor economic downturn, consider what had a much more massive blow to the economy: Rising gas prices, and banks being too loose with some house loans. Think about that. The boogeymen you're afraid of, the ones you're letting terrorize you, are less of a threat than greedy bankers. At least, that's how it's been for the past two decades.

    374. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Yes. No one, at any point in the past has tried to draw anyone's attention to problems with the way the government is operating. This was so out-of-the-blue.

    375. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      How would I know the details of your delusions?

    376. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the most trivial things are tagged as Top Secret these days, in order to not allow anything to come under scrutiny. So much for the most transparent government in history.

    377. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he really break the law, or did he just break a non-disclosure agreement in order to uphold the constitution (which, by the way, is the most important piece of legislation in existence in the USA)?

    378. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Mattasctic · · Score: 1

      He released top secret information, this is a crime and he should be prosecuted. We can't give a pass to everyone that decides they object morally to what the government is doing, because half the people in this country are always going to object to top secret activities. I applaud him for sticking to his morals and blowing a whistle, but he did so knowing he will be prosecuted. We have enough problems in this country keeping classified information classified, we don't need to sanction treason so low level technicians can decide what is moral and what isn't.

    379. Re:Someone start a defense fund by overmoderated · · Score: 1

      "He may be morally in the right... He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not." What does that tell you about law and the government?

    380. Re:Someone start a defense fund by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Liberals and conservatives are not both sides of the same coin. Not at all.

      You are confusing republican and democrat with conservative and liberal. The truth is that both democrats and republicans are conservative. Both are the enemy of America, the nation founded on liberal ideals.

      TBF, there are a few different definitions of "liberal", and each party claims its own form. Republicans love to advocate Neoliberalism, Democrats believe in [very] limited Social Liberalism, and both parties selectively quote Classical Liberals.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    381. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't respond to anything that has an active court case, so save your e-votes for something more trivial that they can PR away.

    382. Re:Someone start a defense fund by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of definition: Peter King is the sort of bigot who uses the word "terrorist" to mean "member of an Islamic fighting force". To those who think that way, the IRA doesn't qualify because it was a Christian group.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    383. Re:Someone start a defense fund by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, unsafe driver and betraying democracy... same thing..

      He hasn't betrayed democracy; he has served it by dragging a secretive and sinister action of our government into the light of day.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    384. Re:Someone start a defense fund by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Free Pussy Riot!

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    385. Re:Someone start a defense fund by smithmc · · Score: 1

      That depends on your definition of right. Acting without a common definition is anarchy.

      We have a common definition - it's called the Fourth Amendment. And the First.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    386. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common Law [our system] has the goal of "Justice," so judges have the power to create exceptions in the law when merited. "Tell it to the Judge" is familiar to us, as a judge has the power to create an exception to the law if the defendant's behavior was appropriate in the circumstances.

      Civil Law [i.e. the Latin world] has the goal of "following the law," so judges are tasked with deciding which existing law is most appropriate. "You're right, but you're going to jail anyhow" is used there in the same circumstances where we would say "Tell it to the Judge."

      Rather obviously our system is changing in fundamental ways.

      Edward Snowden is intelligent, articulate, and seems to me to be marching to a different [and superior] drummer. This video of an interview of him can't be viewed without feeling respect and appreciation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM

    387. Re:Someone start a defense fund by doccus · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, one must first take actions which are doomed to fail. If you know an enemy is going to attack you, and you make a pre-emptive strike without first saying "Hey man, back off" or "I don't want any trouble," it can really come around to bite you in the ass. Furthermore, perhaps you are wrong. Asking in a petition for his honorable actions to be considered honorable and not criminal is a good first step even if you're positive it won't work....

      Good point.. it shows basic honorable behavior.. and often it helps to bolster one's argument.. I don't know how effective it would be against an opponent with absolutely no integrity, but you'd be more likely to get the good will of the population.

    388. Re: Someone start a defense fund by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Most extradition treaties don't include political 'crimes' or civil infringements. This is why the US has had to manufacture laughable "money laundering" charges against Kim Dotcom to have any hope of extraditing him from New Zealand. Snowden's actions would appear to fall squarely into the political category. It will be interesting to see which bogus charges the US tries to conjure up to enable any extradition effort. Who did he murder? What back did he rob? What drugs was be selling?

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    389. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your opinion is based on a lie

      So he was waiting for it to all change when Obama came into office (meaning he knew about it for at least 5 years plus what he worked at the cia). He did not vote for either candidate but had hope Obama would change the situation.

      Yeah I totally skipped reading the article... Perhaps you shouldnt skim it and read all of it. At this point it is mostly he said she said. However, considering the way the politicos are circling the wagons it is that bad... This guy was in there helping. It is how he knows about it in the first place.

    390. Re:Someone start a defense fund by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I did. But I discarded it before properly processing its implication.... heh, whoosh indeed.

    391. Re:Someone start a defense fund by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The reason for that is simple, the people are conditioned from an early age NOT to think. I mean its no surprise to me that those I have met who were home schooled had better critical thinking skills and were quicker to spot the bullshit than those that went to public school. Because I was lucky enough not to have to go to most of junior high and high school (bike wreck kept me out of junior and the coach finding out I read Asimov the first day of HS ended up with me teaching my own class for 4 years to help jocks pass minimum requirements while the "classes" I was supposed to take just gave me straight As) I got to see both sides of the fence and they might as well call public school "Conform and obey" because that is all they are really teaching.

      Its like the old George Carlin bit "things will never get better, know why? Because the owners of this country don't want it to get better! Think they want adults that can think and reason? No they want obedient workers, who will take worse working conditions, less pay, who have just enough sense to be shown how to push the buttons but never capable of asking why their lives sucks, the entire system is built around this".

      But if you want to know why people keeping "falling" for this all it takes is to walk inside the home of your average voter. I would walk into the homes of my boy's friends to pick them up and I would be shocked, not a single book in the house, the kids being babysat by game consoles, and mom and/or dad staring with a blank expression at the idiot box. It was sad to see how little thinking actually goes on in the average household, the only hope I have is more and more of the young and young adults are turning to computers to get information...probably why they are monitoring everyone, so they can spot them "dangerous thinking types".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    392. Re:Someone start a defense fund by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      And......be sure to skim plenty of cash off the top to cover your loses, because, that is what will happen. You'll lose this case. It's open and shut. He's already admitted to the world that he is guilty. Any good lawyer will not touch this with a 10 foot pole!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    393. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and betraying democracy

      When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?

      Seriously, this guy is a criminal

      Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.

      He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret. You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that, but with ONE document. He may be morally in the right, to expose egregious abuse of power and trampling of the 4th amendment (and generally trampling human rights even if the US Constitution isn't the law of the land to whoever was spied on) but he is in some DEEP shit because it was classified the way it was. He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not.

      I'm paraphrasing but "The purpose of a jury is to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts "

    394. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearance is utterly arbitrary, so I'm not sure how much sense that makes.

    395. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nickserv · · Score: 1

      Indeed, please also sign this petition which I would simply love to hear the administration's response to.

      President Obama, if you believe in NSA surveillance, we challenge you to a live, public debate with Edward Snowden.

      President Obama, you have said that the NSA's blanket tracking of Americans' phone calls and collaboration with tech giants "struck the right balance" and that you "welcome this debate". You must agree that this issue is worthy of your time, and as our president you are the best qualified person to make the case in favor of broad surveillance. To make the opposing case, we can think of no one better than whistleblower Edward Snowden. Like you, he has access to the data showing the tradeoff between securing America and damaging democracy (which at this point the public does not). He speaks with breathtaking clarity, and has left behind a comfortable life, facing death for the strength of his convictions. If you are as strong in yours, you owe him (and us) 1 hour of your time for this.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-obama-if-you-believe-nsa-surveillance-we-challenge-you-live-public-debate-edward-snowden/dvjXcZHZ

      --
      Less *is* more.
    396. Re:Someone start a defense fund by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, that's just brilliant...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    397. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had such a moral issue with what was going on he should have used whatever internal chain of command to make his issues known.

      As far as I can tell, he did. Watch his interview on bbc.co.uk.

    398. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gosgog:
      Seems to me there are far more accidents caused by drivers aged 25 & below....checkout the insurance statistics buddy before you run you're uninformed mouth.

    399. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democratic Republic

    400. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      The oath he swore was to protect the Constitution, he has NOT violated that oath, quite the opposite. What he did do was violate the terms of a non-disclosure agreement.

    401. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why America has the Bill of Rights, 200 million misinformed or manipulated people cannot "vote" to take away ones human or civil rights.

    402. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      He did not dump, you are either lying or misinformed.

    403. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      Manning also said that he reviewed the documents himself before turning them over to Wikileaks.

    404. Re:Someone start a defense fund by gary_7vn · · Score: 1

      "Clearance"? Authoritarians are robots.

    405. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This guy broke the law, there's no question about it.

      No he was defendng his country and "The People" of the US.

      We have the right to take matters in our own hands when the gonvernment fails us.

    406. Re: Someone start a defense fund by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Well, you don't seem to have read my post very closely. ;-) I clearly stated " All the (publicly released) evidence seems to support the conjecture ...". I don't know how you could misread this so badly.

      Actually, a better fruit than oranges would be bananas, at least here in the US, where sales figures say that the banana is by a good margin the most-sold fruit. If one were to visit hundreds of American homes and sneakily look around for visible fruit, there's a good chance that all you'd see is bananas. It would thus be reasonable to make the conjecture that Americans seem to eat no fruit other than bananas, and to ask if anyone has evidence to that other fruit are actually eaten by Americans.

      This is pure silliness, of course. Our kitchen counter currently shows a mango and a zucchini sitting there in plain view. But maybe we're outliers in this regard, openly and brazenly displaying non-banana fruits so that any visitor can see them. In political circles, this could easily get us labelled as radical extremists. I suspect that there are millions of other non-banana, alternative-fruit-eating citizens of this country, but I can't prove this. (And there is also a bunch of 5 bananas sitting on a counter in the dining room.)

      So where might I find the evidence that government secrecy has been used for something other than coverups of official wrongdoing? I notice that nobody seems to have replied with pointers to such information. I suspect that secrecy might sometimes have actually been to our advantage, but I can't point to anything to support such a suspicion. All I can find is arguments that it is beneficial, without supporting evidence.

      (See also the Black Swan metaphor for more on the general problem.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    407. Re:Someone start a defense fund by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you don't know a simple English word, maybe use a dictionary?

    408. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      You are aware that there is no law that makes it illegal to give classified material to the news media, aren't you? It sure seems like you think he broke some law. The only thing he broke was an NDA agreement. If you think any and all contracts and EULA should hold a federal PMITA (pound me ..) sentance when they are broken you seem pretty extreme to me. Bradley is a different case as he was a member of the military and is under the UCMJ where what he did is against their policies.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    409. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      People did try to bring a court case. I don't remember if it was ACLU or EFF or who it was. The case was thrown out because they could not prove they were targeted in the phone monitoring. At that time all we knew was phone calls where one party was foreign were being monitored. So now that this document is out the ACLU is bring a case as they are a Verizon customer and can now prove they are targeted by this.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    410. Re:Someone start a defense fund by cavreader · · Score: 1

      This guy has ruined the rest of his life over something that has really not been a secret for over 11 years. The original NSA developer of the earliest versions of the surveillance program was fired from the NSA for disclosing information about the project and was pursued in court which basically bankrupted the guy. He complained that NSA management made him alter his program to be able to capture calls within the US. His original specifications were to build a program to capture and analyze only foreign calls. So Snowden is about 11 years late in outing the existence of such a program. The more information he publishes in regards to legitimate foreign intelligence operations the deeper hole he is digging for himself. Is it really a secret that all countries, friend or foe, spy on each other? Half the staff in every diplomatic embassy in the world are intelligence agents. Diplomatic immunity can do more than just protect someone from a parking ticket. He has also made claims that cannot be supported by any evidence. Especially his claims of instant access to anyones email content and phone conversations. If you are going to play the super hero and right the wrongs of the harsh and uncaring world you better not say one thing that cannot be proven because one misstatement is all it takes to throw doubt on all of his disclosures.
      He should have taken advantage of the whistleblower laws and disclosed the information that way. If he felt the information was not addressed he could put the spotlight back on the information by claiming the whistleblower process was not working. Eventually someone will need to ask about the nature of the information he is disclosing through the Whistleblower process.

    411. Re:Someone start a defense fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people subject to these orders have no recourse. It's "do this or you're violating the law, and, no, you can't challenge the law because revealing the existence of the order would be violating the law". It's utterly ridiculous.

      What you describe is not ridiculous.

      What you describe is enslavement.

  2. Murrica by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a textbook example of the government trying to apply "do as I say, not as I do." If they want us to respect the spirit and letter of the law, they first need to do the same.

    --
    And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    1. Re:Murrica by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      kind of ironic he is hiding in Hong Kong...China....

    2. Re:Murrica by oztiks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just find it amazing that no one has raised the argument that the Stop SOPA, PIPA, etc protests were a tremendous waste of time.

      The PRISM program looks like the Govt has been making their own rules for some time now and with the surveillance revelations of the EAGLE program which Assange addressed in the past (but nobody really cared about because it may or may not of been speculative). I'd say with better judgement that that NSA is not the only organisation doing this.

      BTW I recommend the Ghostery app for Chrome, great little tool, wont help with any of this but still an eye opener on what big business does.

    3. Re:Murrica by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Not ironic at all. During the first cold war, all the defectors from USSR would come and hide in the west. Now, I expect that in this second cold war (yes, China is engaged in a cold war), that western traitors will run over to China. Of course, in about 10 years, they will want to come back.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Murrica by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That might not be the best choice of hiding place, given the current talks on hacking and espionage between China and the USA. Snowden may have made himself into a bargaining chip; perhaps China will be happy to extradite Snowden as a gesture of goodwill.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is they are following the letter of the law. Americans, unfortunately, allowed their politicians to write laws that make it legal for the government to collect this data. Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time - but the government is following the law, both the spirit and the letter.

      And, you can support Snowden all you want but he did break the law. You may support his moral decision but what he did was illegal.

    6. Re:Murrica by chispito · · Score: 1

      This is a textbook example of the government trying to apply "do as I say, not as I do." If they want us to respect the spirit and letter of the law, they first need to do the same.

      I'm not defending the government, but you honestly thought there would be protection for a whistleblower at a spy agency?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    7. Re:Murrica by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Ironic in what respect? Hong Kong actually cherishes and nurtures their freedoms in ways that Beijing knows they can't control. There's a reason Beijing hasn't tried to step Hong Kong slowly into their own system. They know ruining Hong Kong with it would expose the destructive nature of their programs and heavy-handed authority. You know, the kind of programs Snowden exposed.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    8. Re:Murrica by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, this is Hong Kong not mainland China, so there are some differences in the legal system and the like.

      But, having said that, I have no idea if they will resist any extradition or not.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Murrica by stanIyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but the government is following the law

      But they're not following the constitution; other laws are irrelevant.

    10. Re:Murrica by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      That didn't initially strike me but it is very ironic. And probably a very bad place to hang out. I'm sure China has people it would like to get back in exchange for Snowden.

    11. Re:Murrica by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      True... But if Beijing wants him out of HK, he will be out in seconds.

    12. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite ironic indeed. Because anyone who says, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" -- that politician just justified Wikileaks.

    13. Re:Murrica by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Ironic in what respect? Hong Kong actually cherishes and nurtures their freedoms in ways that Beijing knows they can't control. There's a reason Beijing hasn't tried to step Hong Kong slowly into their own system. They know ruining Hong Kong with it would expose the destructive nature of their programs and heavy-handed authority. You know, the kind of programs Snowden exposed.

      Hong Kong is a "special administrative region" which to China means "you can do what you want as long as we approve of it". This guy stands no chance, *especially* if it makes China look like they aren't in charge of HK.

    14. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What traitor? His oath first and foremost is to protect the Constitution, that is what he is doing. That is his duty, just because most people ignore the part about "enemies, foreign AND domestic" doesn't make it any less valid.

    15. Re:Murrica by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that it would make China look that way at all. This will turn on the US far more than it ever could on China.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    16. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who thinks Snowden rather is a national hero and deserves a statue or something?

      Nobody's gonna fuckin' extradite him now. This was the point where the US government officially became an enemy for most of the people of the world (especially for Americans themselves). I don't think even Germany would extradite him by now. Those times are over, NSA. Go home.

    17. Re:Murrica by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      What traitor? His oath first and foremost is to protect the Constitution, that is what he is doing. That is his duty, just because most people ignore the part about "enemies, foreign AND domestic" doesn't make it any less valid.

      WHAT FUCKING OATH!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

      private contractor, fuckers. no doubt using private contractors is just to get around that nsa employees aren't supposed to be doing a lot of the stuff..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only traitor is you.

    19. Re:Murrica by blarkon · · Score: 1

      SOPA et all gives the EFF something "important" to do as a distraction from doing things that are important. Get nerds excited about copyright protection for a bunch of Hollywood elites and they don't excited about their data being sifted by three letter agencies. It's the same strategy that the right uses - get voters wound up about abortion and same sex marriage and they'll ignore the other stuff that may be detrimental to them and have an actual impact on their lives.

    20. Re:Murrica by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time

      The thing is, it is well known how to get the masses to do what you want them to do. I don't want to get all Godwin up in here, but Hermann Goering told us about it decades ago. As he said, it works in any country. So members of the government know that if they tell people they are being attacked and are in danger, the people will let them do what is necessary to keep them safe. Do we really expect people to disbelieve what they see on the news and hear from government spokes people, who after all are supposed to have so much more knowledge and expertise in these things? It's not reasonable. Most people will defer to authority; that's the point of authority.

      But really, it's straight up manipulation. The same people who tell us what a dangerous world it is, tell us what must be done to protect the "Homeland". We know the threat of terrorism is being used for political purposes, because Tom Ridge told us as much when he left office. If you think things are different now because the Blue team is in charge you don't know how this game is played.

      Everyone is in on scaring the fuck out of the American people. Politicians love it because it gets them more power and money. Big business loves it because they get fat government contracts. The media love it because it gets ratings and clicks. So hardly anyone is going to come out and tell people threat is completely overblown and that interested parties are perpetuating it for their own gain. As George Carlin said, they've got us by the balls. So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    21. Re:Murrica by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Private contractor with a security clearance, which implies he did make some promise to protect the information he was given. Whether the words "enemies, foreign and domestic" are part of that set of promises, I have no idea.

      All agencies use contractors. It's very likely not because NSA employees aren't supposed to be doing the work. It's just the way the government gets work done.

    22. Re:Murrica by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Except that governments freely admit that they have lots to hide. State secrets, official secrets act, "top secret" documents, etc.

    23. Re:Murrica by stanIyb · · Score: 1

      Stop jerking off to a 200 year old scrap of paper.

      Yeah, we should just let the government do whatever it pleases, I suppose. Who cares if it follows the rules?

    24. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he has no chance, especially if China gets the chance to look like the American lapdog, fetching Masters shoes and all. I can totally see them leap for that.

    25. Re:Murrica by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      If you think PRISM is actually worse than SOPA, then you might actually be as deluded as you think people are about PRISM. PRISM, even if it was twice as bad as it is, would still affect you on a daily basis far, far less than SOPA would. The NSA program is about grabbing metadata from phones. Whoopty-fucking do. The only reason people care is because it covers "everybody", although as far as I can tell from the Congresspeople who actually know about the program, it isn't even close to some sort of panopticon.

      SOPA would, instead of looking for actual criminals, start violating privacy for normal people for something as stupid as "copyright infringement".

      Just what do you think you are more likely to be harassed or arrested for: terrorism, or copyright infringement? I'm significantly more worried about SOPA-like laws than some NSA spook stuff.

    26. Re:Murrica by berashith · · Score: 1

      this fucking AC troll from the NSA is pissing me off.

      If the framework that allows the rules is irrelevant, then the rules are irrelevant. Even when the american public tries to stop this, they cant when the elected officials do what they please, or just avoid having a conversation based on secrets or burying unrelated "laws" into other bills. If something is unconstitutional, then it is illegal. If a law is illegal, then following it isnt legal. The option to challenge in court has been taken away, and now there is enough proof to make people angry, or at least question some things that had been previously dismissed as nonsense.

    27. Re:Murrica by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      I freely admit that I have lots to hide:

      My personal life
      My financial accounts
      My medical history
      My reading and viewing habits
      My sexual orientation
      My communications.
      My political stance.
      etc.

      I consider this information my "secrets", available only to those I want to know. I want to "hide" it from everyone else. I even - consciously or not - grade it in a fashion similar to the big agencies (e.g., political leanings: access granted to family, close friends. No access to employers, public at large. Penalties apply to those who disseminate this information outside the allowed circle, usually in the form of broken friendships and lots of yelling).

      Why is my information any less important than theirs?

    28. Re:Murrica by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confused. PRISM has nothing to do with the meta-data dragnet that was leaked and everything to do with the fact that the NSA has unfettered access to the data companies like MS, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. have on us.

      "Data which the NSA is able to obtain under PRISM allegedly includes email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice over IP conversations, file transfers, login notifications and social networking details."

      See this for more info.

    29. Re:Murrica by oztiks · · Score: 1

      PRISM as a concept does not scare me, it doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, really. However ... and there are a few problems where it's all heading.

      a) Lets consider the value of PRISM to the NSA in the first place. Going back to the episodes of Hogan's Heroes we all know that the "enemy" would in many circumstances communicate in code to obfuscate their messages. Now, last time i checked the internet is a pretty big place. Even with some of the best code breaking software out there, there is no difference between tapping the information in and out of say Google vs tapping the information in and out of telecommunications companies. So PRISM's inherent value, to me, seems pretty minor. In fact it seems just down right lazy in the first place and pretty useless considering the amounts of data that would need sifting.

      b) Precedent of accepting this as a people. There are plenty of activist groups today trying to constantly stamp out privacy concerns over the internet. They are so afraid that eventually "the other side" will win regardless. Isn't this simply a huge disregard for due process? Isn't this just a static example of no matter how hard people fight, the internet will eventually become regulated without the consent of the people? It's already monitored and sponsored by the major players if you look at the PRISM chart/timeline it's all there.

      c) And now for the two headed snake and a perfect example of the Google "Do no harm" facade in play. Regulation, It currently exists in a pretty acceptable form already for the most. If I was to type any manner of profane keywords into Google the chances are that Google has already censored them to some extent. I'm almost certain that you may find the occasional nasty here or there but all in all I feel Google has a pretty good form of regulation as it is.

      In summary, regulation in its ideal sense is fine, just as how society is portrayed in Star Trek as really a good way to live life as well. It's just too bad we are 200 - 300 years behind social evolution wise to live in such a common good society and we are stuck with the crap way things are today. What this PRISM thing shows is that we should, as a society, grow up a little because this childish "get away" with everything because we are above everything for the "greater good" is far more dangerous than SOPA or what any other grab at regulative control ever done. It's now a situation of take control at all costs because a small faction's "I know better" philosophies without checks and balances in place and an uncertainty of really knowing which way is up any more.

      It's a demonstration of how mindless we all operate. We're not good enough for the Star Trek way of life and nor are the legislative rule benders either, even if they think they are.

    30. Re:Murrica by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You're right. I had a look. It's actually not even as bad as the metadata dragnet.

      Why do people care about this? It's not even involving American citizens except when it happens that they are talking to foreign nationals, which is always a tricky case, but not unusual.

      And it appears that they *don't* have unfettered access to those companies, the slide was imprecise. Not a surprise given it is in a Powerpoint document.

    31. Re:Murrica by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Code or not, mere communication with certain entities is sufficient to make them interesting. Even if they can't read that data now, they could simply pick up someone who know knows the code or who can break it. Or they already have that code, and then all that is required is to make the intercepts and put together the data.

      And honestly, no one has perfect operational security. Slip ups or bad assumptions about your level of security could expose you to this sort of intercept.

      And even if they couldn't stop an attack tomorrow, they may break the code in time to find the individual who may be left over to coordinate attacks on future targets. In the end, the only way that terrorism will really stop is finding those people who carry on from day to day promoting it and operating support for attackers.

      As an investigative tool, its usefulness would be limited for somethings like a local police department who could get more bang for the buck with using traditional investigative tactics on a smaller population, but for a group that is trying to get data for the entire world, small percentages work out to be large absolute numbers of intercepts.

    32. Re:Murrica by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      I agree, as long as the government never decides to start looking into domestic citizen communications, we have nothing to fear. Even then it'll of course be secret and we won't know about it just as was the case here -- unless some other whistle blower emerges. Hell even THEN, if one isn't doing anything wrong, he has nothing to fear.

    33. Re:Murrica by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Why do people hate that "faded piece of parchment" so badly? It's the only thing protecting your right to liberty (including pissing and moaning on internet forums), and you would piss upon it if you had the chance. Are you mentally unstable?

    34. Re:Murrica by Hydian · · Score: 1

      How is trashing people's rights an example of human decency?

    35. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hong Kong is going to turn him over for two simple reasons; they don't want to piss of China and HK needs the U.S. to be on its good side because they know China will shit all over them.
      China will turn him over or imprison him for life, his timing could not have been any worse after Obama just had a meet with their president. This is a chicken shit affair for China and they will happily hand him over, it will look good on them after being confronted on hacking/computer stuff.

      In a month well see snowden getting off a plane in cuffs in America, 8 months he will be in court facing charges, in 2 years he will be convicted, 30 years from now he will be sitting lonely in a cold cell.

    36. Re:Murrica by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      he was in the military. and the CIA. the took the oath to defend the Constitution. in the oath, there's no clause that says "until I'm done working here"

    37. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW I recommend the Ghostery app for Chrome, great little tool, wont help with any of this but still an eye opener on what big business does.

      I'd like to see a browser app/plugin that raises the noise level of collected data (and would also add plausible deniability). We all know that Google, etc, logs our searches, ostensibly for "statistical" purposes but they'll give that to anyone who waves a legal piece of paper at them (or maybe even just a check). How about a browser plugin that in the background fires off random word searches? Reduces the meaning and value of collected data. Maybe also have it randomly direct user searches to different search engines.

    38. Re:Murrica by steelfood · · Score: 1

      PIPA and SOPA were industry intrusions into government. This is something else entirely. Corruption I believe it's called.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    39. Re:Murrica by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. he made a promise to protect information.. But in the case of blatantly unConstitutional crap like this, the oath that he almost certainly did NOT take, trumps that promise.. namely the part of the oath that says "Protect and Defend The Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies".. I'd say this current administration is a "domestic enemy".... In which case, he's obeying the oath quite well in my estimation.. In fact, I'd say he's a national hero...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    40. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people care about this? It's not even involving American citizens...

      You're a sad small minded petty excuse for a human being. Go die in a fire.

    41. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (same AC) People like scare me. Have you re-read your post? That circular rule-fucking doesn't stop anyone abusing your human rights. You can argue that shit until you're blue in the face but you're only tying yourself up further in knots.

      The chef is pissing in the soup and you're arguing over which is the proper spoon to eat it with!

    42. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, because although it's not the current legal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, as written it does apply to foreign nationals (it says "people" not "citizens"). This is important because the foreign nationals restriction is known to be avoided by simply having the UK officially be running the surveillance and then give the data to the US (and the other way around).

      In reality, it's very, very unlikely that the NSA is actually making any reasonable effort to limit their dragnet to foreign nationals.

    43. Re:Murrica by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, that will depend.
      If there were abuses on this, and he can prove it, then yes, he is a whistleblower.

      HOWEVER, if there was no proof of abuses, and no spying on our calls without a warrent and all he did was announce about some of our core capabilities, then he is a traitor.

      At this time, I hope that he is a traitor. And to be honest, it looks like he is. So far, he has not produced proof that the US gov. was actually listening in on calls without warrents etc.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    44. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Justice?" The Colonel was astounded. "What is justice?"
      "Justice, sir –"
      "That's not what justice is," the colonel jeered, and began pounding the table again with his big fat hand. "That's what Karl Marx is. I'll tell you what justice is. Justice is a knee in the gut from the floor on the chin at night sneaky with a knife brought up down on the magazine of a battleship sandbagged underhanded in the dark without a word of warning."
      P. 80, Catch-22

    45. Re:Murrica by readingaccount · · Score: 1

      So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.

      You know this, I know this, most of Slashdot and the wider tech society knows this. So evidently is is possible for people in a society to know that the Government is manipulative and untrustworthy. It's not even that hard really - just being cautious about what you're told and having an eye towards critical thinking is enough. Or is that asking for too much apparently?

      The American people are no different from anyone else in the world, not really anyway. In fact they still have greater freedoms for finding information on the net from unrestricted channels than say, people in Iran or China. All it takes in the end is to give a damn, and if more people gave a damn, I dunno, maybe things would turn out better.

      The first thing they could do though is fucking stop taking sides in politics, as if they're barracking for some sports team. This isn't a game.

    46. Re:Murrica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws don't stop bad things from happening. What they do is let the public know about the punishment that'll happen when someone has been judged guilty of breaking it. The punishment for breaking the constitution should be considered treachery. The laws that permit unrestricted spying are evil and are contrary to the spirit that founded the constitution.

    47. Re:Murrica by berashith · · Score: 1

      ok, so you originally mention human decency, then you talk of what can stop abuses of human rights. It is obvious that certain types of people are drawn to power, and will abuse others rights to maintain their power. These people are not decent. The only way to enforce decency on those in power is to limit the rights of the government in regards to how it treats its governed. When the government reports to the people, as in the faded piece of parchment, then the people have a chance of forcing decency upon those in power. When the govenment decides that the people dont need to be informed, and that they should just leave the decisions to the grown ups, then even if they currentlhy arent being abusive and indecent, they have set the stage for someone who will be a complete shit and crack down on everyone they can.

      I dont see the circular problems in my statement. the laws are descended from an original source. If you choose to dismiss any and all value from that source, then that is fine, but dont just expect anyone with any shred of power to be decent to you on their own will. This goes from the POTUS to the board of a neighborhood association.

    48. Re:Murrica by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. It wont do much, but at least register interest by stewsters · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That would be actually reasonably smooth move by Obama if he wishes to temper the wrath of his own party. But it's completely absurd to imagine that it's the petition that would make him change his mind. Still, if you're into such things...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by ag0ny · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Are you going to petition your own corrupt government? The time for petitions is over. You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.

      This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.

    3. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by mblase · · Score: 1

      That would be actually reasonably smooth move by Obama if he wishes to temper the wrath of his own party. But it's completely absurd to imagine that it's the petition that would make him change his mind. Still, if you're into such things...

      I liked it better when the trolls were subtle.

    4. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by MasseKid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And exactly what good is impeaching Obama going to do? You believe that Biden is secretly against these things and is the white knight that is going to come to our rescue? Or have you not actually thought that far ahead? Wait, let's say we impeach everyone till a republican gets back into office. Do you not remember who it was that signed the patriot act in the first place? I agree change needs to happen, however before rallying a cry for change, let's make sure the change will actually have a meaningful impact and give us the results we want.

    5. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, first you suggest we make progress through non-violent means, then you turn right around and show yourself to be violent. That's more than just "respect" for the 2nd Amendment, that's really rash and uncivilized. And this is why I can't trust people like yourself.

    6. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by kimvette · · Score: 1

      No pardon is required. Why? Because any law requiring you to cover up illegal actions are not legal laws. They are unconstitutional, and they are ethically and morally wrong as well. The laws they are warping to "get him" need to be revoked, and the people responsible for both the witch hunt and for the illegal domestic spying need to be tried and executed for treason.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Crimes against humanity have specific criteria within the Rome Statute, none of which has been breached by this form of privacy intrusion. It could be a breach of human rights, though.

      That being said, the US hasn't ratified the Rome Statute and doesn't recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court. You're SOOL with that one, I'm afraid.

      As for guns, your police and armed forces have more of them, of better quality and capability, and are better trained in their use. GLWT.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just Obama - ALL of both houses of Congress. The entire federal government is rotten to the core. Plenty of senators knew about PRISM and other domsetic spying programs and they did nothing to stop it. In fact they are the ones who had to authorize funding for these programs. When they are ousted from office, revoke all privileges associated with the office, including pensions, health care, security details, aides, security clearance, and whatever fringe benefits they normally enjoy. In fact I would go so far as to recall any salaries they have collected to date because they held office in bad faith.

      Kick out ALL incumbents and actually vote in statesmen who recognize that the making of a great leader is one who wants to serve the people; not a person with an entitlement attitude.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    9. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that Obama didn't (and maybe still doesn't) know the extent of the NSA's technological reach. Perhaps they don't tell him everything, and maybe he doesn't ask.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    10. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by thoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.

      It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair.
      Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war).
      There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.

      If you really want to "do something", besides jerk off with both hands by bloviating online, donate to the EFF or ACLU, where actual attorneys can file the right kinds of lawsuits. Yes that means petitioning your own "corrupt government". Some people realize that the government isn't a hive mind, and there are checks/balances to be applied (granted they may be rusty).

    11. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by ag0ny · · Score: 1

      True. This isolated case would be a breach of privacy. But all of them combined (wars for oil, prosecution of foreign nationals in foreign countries, killings of civilians, etc) would certainly be enough to put them all in jail for life.

      As for guns, your police and armed forces have more of them,

      Not my police. I'm happy I'm not an American. There was a time (pre-9/11) when I thought the U.S. would be an awesome place to live. I even visited the MIT to check the place before taking a decision. Then 9/11 happened and your government used it as an excuse to invade some countries and become a police state.

      I moved to Japan instead.

    12. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by stewsters · · Score: 1

      You make enough noise and they will tear each other apart to keep their vote. They are cut throat politicians.

      Send this to your representatives:
      https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9260

      If they don't change their mind, vote for the new guy and make sure they know why.

    13. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Atryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is something ironic about needing to have a registered account at whitehouse.gov and using it to publicly sign a petition claiming the whitehouse should pardon a guy who disclosed tracking / spying ability for anyone the gov't doesn't like. It seems like you'd end up on that "list" right after signing, right?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    14. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for.... are you dense? This isn't justification for impeachment or worse. This program is doing exactly the same thing that Bush was doing, except that since 2008 it's been overseen by the FISA court. i.e. it's "warrantless wiretapping" but with warrants, albeit ones that authorize a dragnet and are rubber-stamped every 90 days. Is it too broad? Probably. But it isn't the kind of abuse of power without oversight that was previously going on. It's "authorized" and does have some token oversight.

      Release of specific information about the program is cause for a deep and public discussion of what is appropriate. Not just in the US, but in all western democracies where I'm positive the same sort of thing is probably going on within their own intelligence agencies. It's not cause for impeachment or insurrection. Governments aren't *that* corrupt. There's still plenty of ability to use the force that exists in any functioning democracy: voting. So, direct the public outrage properly. And the target shouldn't be a petition to Obama, but every single representative who voted for renewal of the Patriot Act and similar authorizations elsewhere. Same for the parallel legislation that got passed in plenty of western democracies since 9/11. Tell them, "No, stop it, this isn't what we had in mind." Legislators will be falling over themselves trying to get in front of this. They'll listen. But don't let up until they actually pass things into law to fix the problem.

      Basically you are aiming way too narrowly if you think this is Obama's or a single leader's fault. We told them what we wanted, our legislators signed a blank cheque, spare us the technical details. And here it is, more-or-less as long suspected. Now that we've seen the implementation we are complaining? Yeah, we should. A lot. But we it has to be done with more than stupid petitions that miss the point, and NO, that does not mean with guns either. It can be undone the same way that it was done in the first place.

    15. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.

      No, it really isn't. The guns aren't useful for that. We could use the guns to assassinate him, but he would simply be replaced by someone even worse as the nation entered a state of hysteria, so that would be a very bad idea even if there were no other repercussions, which there certainly would be.

      The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, trading the set of seasoned, competent crooks for naïve, incompetent crooks just opens the floodgates for the very experienced lobbying and bribing industries to fully ensnare them at a tender age.

      I still like a three-strikes constitutional amendment for federal politicians: if you vote to pass (or sign into law) three bills that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you were incompetent and/or corrupt, you enabled the theft of rights from the citizenry, and you get a 15 year prison sentence - no statute of limitations, just a 3:30 AM ninja raid and you go to prison. There should be consequences for stealing our rights through the misuse of the force of law.

      --
      John
    17. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guarantee you'll be getting a visit from the Secret Service momentarily.

    18. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Entropius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd be interested to see, built into the Constitution, a nuclear option:

      Every time there is a federal election (i.e. every two years), there is a little tick box for "vote of no confidence". If over 50% of people (or a majority of people in over 50% of states, or however you want to define "majority" -- or perhaps a supermajority) tick it, then there is another election after a three month campaign, for all Senate seats, House seats, and the Presidency. All current members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and senior Cabinet members are ineligible to run. Until they're sworn in, any act of the lame-duck Congress requires a supermajority (so they can't break things out of spite on the way out), and can be vetoed by a majority of state governors. (The point is to impose paralysis for all but urgent matters until the new government gets there.)

    19. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I signed : )

    20. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by kimvette · · Score: 2

      I like that, because it would be a good means to end pork spending, and to curb the passage of needless and redundant laws. Some people think progress isn't being made if new laws aren't being passed daily. My view is that there are already too many laws on the books; all of us are felons, at least on paper. The amount of laws each and every individual breaks every day is ridiculous, and it's because many laws are drafted to target a certain invidual or group, and then selectively enforced, but at any time if you make an enemy they could selectively enforce them on any one of us.

      What would I consider to be an effective Congress? One which puts us back on a wealth-based rather than debt-based currency, one which repeals all but the most essential laws, one which ends the moronic "war on drugs" (I've never so much as tried pot, but the way I see it if you want to fry your brain, be my guest) which is a colossal waste of money, end the vague "war on terror" and the systematic sexual assault on citizens in airports, and enact more common sense laws such as background checks prior to firearms purchases, rather than arbitrarily limiting which guns a citizen may buy, especially since there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".

      I mean, how does putting a semi-automatic magazine into a more mundane wood stock and long barrel not an assault rifle, but putting it into a magnesium stock that is stained black and looks kinda cool suddenly an assault weapon? It's the same exact gun either way, with the same capability. One just looks cool and is a little lighter (and better for hunting) than the other. Those laws make NO sense, especially since the secondment amendment says pretty fucking clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    21. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by berashith · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling he really meant what he said about a transparent and open government, and then a few people had some conversations with him after he got to the oval office, and some pragmatism set in. He could still be a leader if he would like to, use the power of the pulpit to try to lift up the rights of the people, but I am not going to hold my breath for that one.

    22. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by berashith · · Score: 1

      the people responsible should be tried for treason and executed, which is why they are going to be so aggressive in quashing these actions.

    23. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      While the above post is a bit extreme, at heart it may have merit.

      We are granting our leaders great privilege. We are giving them power over us, and with it they can not only guide the nation in a direction they want it to go, but this position also provides them with influence over others which can help them in their future careers. And we even pay them for it. It's a great deal for them. But there is absolutely no liability on their part if they go directly against the will of their electorate.

      Maybe there should be.

    24. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by fnj · · Score: 1

      Fuck polarization. Find me ANYONE in the general population who doesn't see this happy horseshit for the ugly corruption that it is. On this matter there is no disagreement. It's been going on for a bare minimum of 12 years now; both parties are as dirty as pigs wallowing in filth.

    25. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      At least it would send a message.

    26. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some gentlemen might wish to visit a datacenter in Utah and ask to have a look around. Politely, of course.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    27. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Not just Obama - ALL of both houses of Congress.

      What about those members of Congress that have been actively opposing these sorts of activities? Take, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders: He's consistently voted against the USA Patriot Act, organized efforts to de-fund past versions of this exact spying effort, and regularly spoken against it on the stump.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    28. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes without saying that government loves armed revolt. It then has the justification to cull its own citizens at its discretion (and of course discretion has mercy on the supplicating bootlickers). The political class is gnawing at the rope to unleash martial law, each one of these stories is practically a fiber snapping.

    29. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by kharchenko · · Score: 2

      I'd go further and say that this type of bellicose nonsense is really detrimental. We don't have a tyrannical government that's oppressing its own populace - we have a rotten political system where that very populace continuously re-elects ineffective and corrupt politicians. If, as you say, most of us were on the same page, the problem would have already been solved. And none of your firearms will be necessary.

    30. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, citizen! Let me just do a couple of clicks and see who put you up to signing this petition. We'll address it all right! :)

    31. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You believe that Biden is secretly against these things and is the white knight that is going to come to our rescue?

      I believe Biden is a slimy politician who will not say and do things that will very likely get him impeached.

      Sending a message that this kind of stuff is an impeachable offense is a good idea. It doesn't matter right now though, Obama's job approval rating is around 50%. Any impeachment effort for a president that people still like will fail.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people are starting to wise up to the artificial polarization though. We've had several terms now that send the very clear message that republicans and democrats are merely different colored pigs that advance the same agenda of running all of the horses into the ground. Campaign dollars are often spread equally between parties so that no matter who wins the lobbiests will be sure to have an in. Getting everyone to agree on who the right person is to depart from the R/D dichotomy is going to be a challenge, but seeing the complete lack of change I'd hope that all those who voted for Obama now see that he's not the knight in shining armor they thought he was. Punishing people for being successful is not what is going to bring this nation back to greatness. When this country formed people believed in freedom, democracy, helping your fellow man, charity, etc. Now days it's every man for himself, let the government help the poor, what's in it for me, how can I have more money and time, corporations are bad, gimmes are good, etc. In a word it's selfishness that is killing this nation. When we get away from that and start looking at building our nation again maybe we've got a shot at getting rid of the rampent corruption. As long as everyone votes for the guy who's going to give more welfare and require less responsibility we're going to continue on this downward spiral.

    33. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      It goes without saying that government loves armed revolt

      They may love it but it doesn't love them. Most (successful) coup d'etats end with the leader's head in a noose and everyone else in the power structure looking for jobs.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    34. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Impeaching everyone ain't such a bad idea.

    35. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about h4rr4r? He posts right here on slashdot.

    36. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call shenanigans, I live in Belgium, have a private domestic IP and the petition says "You've already signed this petition" ?

    37. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by yoshi_mon · · Score: 0

      There are going to be those who have an axe to grind with Obama for being black, for being elected 2 times when the right wing machine did everything in their power to make him a 1 term president, to having a D next to his name, for not doing exactly what they say, for whatever. Those who cry impeachment lose all creditability to me. You lost that chance, for me, when you let Reagan not be impeached for treason by doing things behind congresses back.

      So, whatever, that is how the dance is done now. The people who assume power pardon the high crimes of the past. Whatever. Why are we here? Why does the system work like this?

      Money.

      Money currently, be it oil, the military industrial complex, health care (including pharma), farms, et all; rules the day. We must remove the idea of corporate person hood. We must remove the money, in as much as we can, from our politics. We must get our representatives (reminder, we live in a Republic, NOT a Democracy) to have an interest in our needs and not the needs of those who paid to get them elected.

      I personally will die a happy man in the years I have left to see that happen. And right now, as sad as I get about our current system, I know that I am not alone in saying these things.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    38. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... If over 50% of people ...

      Firstly, half of people don't vote in the USA, so its difficult to know the will of the people. Those who do vote, usually vote on bi-partisan lines: That party supports X, which I don't like. Worse, X is usually cultural edge issues: gay marriage, funded contraception, abortions; which affect a small number of citizens at one time. Voters will be ticking it every second election because all other voters won't agree with their rules.

    39. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... there are checks/balances to be applied ...

      It didn't work when the entire congress created secret laws. It didn't work when the Supreme court decided the entire population was 'ex parte' to the activities of the NSA (because those activities were secret).

    40. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, but undeserving of a rebuttal.

    41. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be interested in this as well. I've been thinking that calling an Article V convention to put exactly this sort of radical restraining influence on the federal government might be the only way for the citizens to get their sovereignty and control back.

      It would have to be a truce between the "sides" of American politics at a local level to pass. Without a supermajority, any proposals would die.

      I'm thinking about exactly what would be the best to propose, but simple, short, and non-partisan are essential to the success of such an endeavor. Widespread public support of the proposed amendment beforehand will be required prior to calling a convention.

    42. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Typical+Slashdotter · · Score: 1

      It may be superficially ironic, but it's a petition. You sign your name to petitions; they're inherently not anonymous.

    43. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Typical+Slashdotter · · Score: 1

      There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.

      It's not the legal framework; it's the cultural and political landscape. No court process, attorney general, or executive order can stop an impeachment. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2):

      The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

      If Boehner and his Republican colleagues wanted to impeach Obama over this, they could do so easily. There appears to be no appetite in either party for this, however. If the house were to impeach Obama, it would probably be over health insurance, or the deficit or something.

    44. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by tqk · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that Obama didn't (and maybe still doesn't) know the extent of the NSA's technological reach.

      One of his primary functions is to nominate people who would know and be responsible. The Senate then goes through elaborate confirmation hearings to ensure his choices are reasonable.

      Lots of blame to go around for anyone so inclined.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    45. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair.
      Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war).
      There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.

      Quick! Someone blow this nigger's cock and get him impeached, since probably nothing else will work.
      Signed, AC.

    46. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This idea violates part of the design of the Senate - it has 1/3 of its members elected every 2 years to deliberately insulate it from popular pressure and moderate public urges. Want to pass dramatic change X? It must maintain popular support for at least two election cycles to produce the necessary senate votes for it.

    47. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i believe revolution is the point. the 2nd amendment was written, not for hunters and what not, but to protect the citizens against tyrannical government. the reason we have guns, should always be, first and foremost, the protection of liberty.

      i'm pretty sure there's a bunch of american pussies out there who want to debate the gun issue, but it is our duty as citizens to overthrow a corrupt government.

    48. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Just remember, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted. Maybe you can give immunity from prosecution, but I'm not sure the President can do that. Knowing Obama, he'll have him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    49. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When this country formed people believed in freedom, democracy, helping your fellow man, charity, etc.

      When was that? This country was founded on slavery, has never been a democracy, and the idea that the poor were cared for better before today is a pathetic myth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, but a couple of problems. For one, this would create bad financial instability, so the money won't go for it. That's a checkmate.

      There's another problem too. The congress is a functioning body with institutional memory. Would you also kick out all the staff? If so, how would a body made entirely of freshmen with green staffers have any idea how to legislate? They wouldn't know what ground had already been gone over. Lots of weird legislation would pass without consulting interests- in some cases good, in many cases that could be VERY bad. Believe me, it's not as easy as it was in the 1780's. The result would likely be chaos.

    51. Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest by alexo · · Score: 1

      The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.

      That "problem" is by design.

  4. Abide by the law? by cuncator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like, say, the 4th amendment protecting against unlawful search and seizure? Bastards were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are trying anything to deflect attention.

    1. Re:Abide by the law? by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meanwhile, a helpful Government spokeman is making hand gestures and saying:

      These are not the rights you're looking for. Your privacy has not been violated. You may go about your business. Move along, move along. . . .

    2. Re:Abide by the law? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this morning during my commute, the radio hosts tried to play this as if the program were already completely known, and the only problem is that we "don't trust Obama having access to it". Fools.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Abide by the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law also says that attacking another state, torture, and assassination are illegal but Americans can't be bothered to do anything at all about that. Why do you think anything will be done about a little spying?

    4. Re:Abide by the law? by prasadsurve · · Score: 3, Funny

      Meanwhile, a helpful Government spokeman is making hand gestures and saying:

      I think the hand gestures you are referring to is the one with closed fist and extended middle finger.

    5. Re:Abide by the law? by eples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, both programs abide by the 4th amendment.

      Also, here's the 1979 supreme court case ruling that your phone records are not private: Smith v. Maryland ... (post-watergate era even!)

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
    6. Re:Abide by the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, both programs abide by the 4th amendment.

      Yeah - it's the old two legs and four legs thing...

    7. Re:Abide by the law? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ""Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"

      Trying hard to say they're the same thing. It's unfortunate that modern legislature keeps ignoring the fact that the Nuremberg Defence has been well and truly established as no defence whatsoever....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    8. Re:Abide by the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't just about phone *records*. Phone *conversations*, btw, are private.

      This is about your emails, your private FB messages, your Skype Chats. Your SMS.

      Those are certainly private.

    9. Re:Abide by the law? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Which is why really we just need a new Constitutional Convention.

      The patent mess is the way it is because the patent lawyers realized they could just add "on a computer" to anything and make it patentable, and the Boomer judges are too ignorant of technology to understand why that shouldn't count.

      We need to go back through the bill of rights and add "even on a computer" to every admendment. You still have free press rights...even if you're a blogger on a computer. You still have self-defense rights...even if you're printing your gun on a computer. You still have the right to be secure in your papers...even if your papers are on the computer.

      That's the gist, but the language would have to be different, as what I've said is too specific. The 4th amendment needs to be broadened to say something like "communications and personal information," so it doesn't matter if you're using smoke signals or direct brainwave interfaces, it still counts. And "personal information" needs to cover your DNA, your genome sequence, and your communications history and patterns. "Meta-data" my ass.

      We also need a "separation of corporations and state." We put all these restrictions in place on government, but it's a perfectly fine end around to collect it from a corporation. "We weren't collecting your phone calls! Heavens no! Verizon was. That they 'shared' them with us later is besides the point. It's a free country, after all, and corporations need to be free to share your meta-data! Just so long as you don't share...I mean steal their intellectual property."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:Abide by the law? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      and if that decision were being made today nearly all of /. would be saying they got it wrong.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    11. Re:Abide by the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, here's the 1979 supreme court case ruling that your phone records are not private: Smith v. Maryland ... (post-watergate era even!)

      In the case you mention, what you call "phone records" where only the number dialed out or dialed in, not the actual content of the conversation / communication.

    12. Re:Abide by the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because some judge decided that it was legal enough for him does not mean it's right. Very simply, the 1979 supreme court was wrong.

    13. Re:Abide by the law? by celle · · Score: 1

      "1979 supreme court case ruling"

      All supreme court rulings are the governments opinion, you still have your own and if enough agree the governments opinion doesn't mean shit.

    14. Re:Abide by the law? by billd10 · · Score: 0

      Interesting how government spying on the public can be a "top secret." This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering up potentially illegal and certainly unconstitutional activity by government bureaucrats.

  5. I expect they are worried by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Informative

    I assume they are worried about what else he plans on releasing. If he has much more damning evidence (Which I assume he does) they want to get into the fold of Mother USA's arms to squeeze... hug him into silence before he says much more.

    1. Re:I expect they are worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this.

      It ruins their PR to actually go after him.

    2. Re:I expect they are worried by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Already released pretty damning material, seems like it'd be pretty hard to top what he already released. He'd need video evidence of Congress colluding with a clone of Hitler to make waves.

    3. Re:I expect they are worried by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I would hope that if he had anything further, it's already in the hands of third parties. This guy's not stupid, and the people at The Guardian probably have it. If not others.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:I expect they are worried by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Also I suspect going public was a side effect of the NSA figuring out who leaked the info. He's obviously quite scared and the public eye is a lot safer than the shadows in these circumstances.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:I expect they are worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitlers clone wouldenroll at the Art Institute After developing his mediocre art talent he would be too busy struggling with 60k of student loans while unable to find a job that pays more than 15/hr. This prevents dictatorships.

    6. Re:I expect they are worried by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

      "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

      Whatever else people may think of him, this puts him one step above Manning in my book.

      Though it sounds from the Guardian interview as if he's conflating the attitudes he saw while in the military, the activities he saw while at the CIA abroad, and NSA programs. These are different things surely. If he was unhappy with the way the CIA operates in Switzerland, then he should have exposed those things, rather than NSA programs. He sites no example of actually having witnessed the detrimental effects of these NSA programs (which you'd think must be pretty plentiful given the size of them.)

      In the same sense as Manning, what he's done really falls under the category of 'vindictive divulgence'.

    7. Re:I expect they are worried by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Quoth Darth Snowshoe: I'm a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

      Manning, stay strong man, is a fucking hero. He didn't dump a whole lot of documents. He gave them to professionals who evaluated them and decided what to publish. The fact that some of the pros weren't as pro as might have been hoped is not Manning's fault.

      Moreover, any exposure of wrong doing, and any publishing of secret documents, is a good thing for humanity at large. Fuck America and the corrupt American government. Snowden should have taken everything and published it all (perhaps on Freenet). Burnt the entire fucking Americunt spy network.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    8. Re:I expect they are worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already released pretty damning material, seems like it'd be pretty hard to top what he already released. He'd need video evidence of Congress colluding with a clone of Hitler to make waves.

      The Republican dominated House of Representatives seems pretty safe from being seen colluding with Obama.

    9. Re:I expect they are worried by asmkm22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm more interested in the other 37 slides that he gave to reporters, but didn't get published. It seems they spoke with the Whitehouse before writing the report, and agreed to only publish 4 of the slides. What's on the other 37 that's so damning? And what happened to open journalism? With this state-controlled/influenced news situation we now have, how would you release information like this without it just getting censored anyway?

    10. Re:I expect they are worried by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia: "Manning told Lamo he was also responsible for the "Cablegate" leak of 251,287 State Department cables, written by 271 American embassies and consulates in 180 countries, dated December 1966 to February 2010."

      He also said explicitly that he didn't read them. He gave them to professional journalists, yes. Somehow, regardless of the journalists' intent, these cables were all available on the internet for a period of time. Whatever you believe about Manning's motives or justifications, what I have written is the truth.

      America is not unique in wanting its diplomatic traffic to and from its embassies to remain secret. EVERY country does that. And whatever you believe, it's a good bet that each of these 251,287 cables does not illuminate a crime.

      Manning took a pledge to protect this information. Putting classified material into the hands of other people you kinda-sorta know and hope will do the right thing is not the same as protecting that information. He broke his pledge. He would be a whistleblower if he only exposed those things which he felt were actual crimes. Instead he chose to be a vandal.

    11. Re:I expect they are worried by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I think you're reading a little too far into it there. That he became disillusioned over a long period of time doesn't mean that his reaction wasn't justified in the immediate circumstance.

      There are two paths through a career like his. Either you justify one "little white wrong" on the grounds of getting one bad guy off the streets, and then justify the next, slightly greyer one, and so on until you're excusing all manner of illegal, immoral and downright antisocial behaviour as being "protecting the good guys", or you start questioning one iffy decision and your doubt grows with every decision you question until your conscience can't take it any more.

      Consider a typical office scenario. You're fresh in the door as a young graduate. Your boss lies to the client, and you're too afraid to call him up on it. He puts an extra hour or two on the timesheet, so that the company doesn't have to pay for his guys' time in company-internal meetings. You don't like this, you're not comfortable with this, but you don't have the power so you try to convince yourself it's OK. Over the years you either convince yourself it is OK, and become the same kind of manager, or you get out of the situation as soon as possible, shrug your shoulders and say "it's between them" or (if the situation is bad enough) you report your employer for criminal fraud. Very few corporate scenarios result in the last one, but God knows how many spooks have walked away from service with the shrug-of-the-shoulders saying "I'm not part of it, my conscience is clear"? Thankfully, all it takes is for one to blow the whistle.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    12. Re:I expect they are worried by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

      "There are two paths through a career like his." - This is the exact definition of a reductionist argument. I don't believe every IT guy working in the intelligence industry much choose one of the two paths you outlined. Is it perhaps possible that some of them could be doing what they do with a clear conscience, and actually believing in what they do?

      Snowden sees some Swiss banker shmoozed up and boozed up by a CIA agent, the banker wrecks his car, ends up being recruited (approximately what is described in the Guardian article.) Snowden is aghast, it sounds absolutely terrible on the face of it, no? Uhh, maybe? If in the end, billions of dollars of international criminal transactions are exposed, which closes off a safe haven and laundering mechanism or all kinds of 'bad guys' around the world, who is to judge the real moral value of the outcome?

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say some IT/security guy operating at the periphery of the enterprise simply doesn't have the full story. He doesn't have the full perspective to make that call, not for all of us. If he witnessed specific things that bothered him, there are other ways he could have attempted to address it first. He should have gone to the inspector general. He should have gone to the CSC. He could have approached Congress. In truth, by his own admission, he did none of these things.

      "Thankfully, all it takes is for one to blow the whistle" you write. I think it is worth turning that question around. If thousands of people are engaged in this enterprise, all of them also acting earnestly and also possessing eyes and consciences, what gives Edward Snowden the right to presume his moral judgements are more correct than everyone else's? It seems to me a particularly self-aggrandizing and hubristic act.

      At least Bradley Manning had video footage of innocents being killed. All Snowden had was some powerpoint slides he objected to.

    13. Re:I expect they are worried by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I assume they are worried about what else he plans on releasing. If he has much more damning evidence (Which I assume he does) they want to get into the fold of Mother USA's arms to squeeze... hug him into silence before he says much more.

      If he's smart, those dumps are dead-man triggered. NSA knows this, for sure.
      Meanwhile, having him extradited and "Manning'ed" isn't going to go over well at all for PR.

      Snowden may actually have a stronger hand than everyone fears.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    14. Re:I expect they are worried by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 0

      Yeah, fuck off and die in a fire. Fuck your apologism. And fuck the government.

      Who gives a shit what the government wants. It's all illegitimate and all deserves to burn.

      Manning presumably took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the USA, and then realized that actually there is all this shit that by protecting meant he wasn't upholding his oath. He may have taken another oath to protect that shit, but his duty to humanity as a whole outweighs all oaths. And presumably you'd agree that protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting some stupid diplomatic cables.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    15. Re:I expect they are worried by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      "Thankfully, all it takes is for one to blow the whistle" you write. I think it is worth turning that question around. If thousands of people are engaged in this enterprise, all of them also acting earnestly and also possessing eyes and consciences, what gives Edward Snowden the right to presume his moral judgements are more correct than everyone else's? It seems to me a particularly self-aggrandizing and hubristic act.

      I'll see that with the bystander effect

      And I'll raise you...

      At least Bradley Manning had video footage of innocents being killed. All Snowden had was some powerpoint slides he objected to.

      Bradley Manning used one video to justify leaking whole screeds of unrelated and highly sensitive material. Snowden released only information directly relating to what he felt was illegal actions on the part of the government, and he released it via properly accredited journalists with legal departments behind them to ensure that nothing would be released that would endanger any lives or compromise live intel.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    16. Re:I expect they are worried by jatoo · · Score: 1

      And then the public would say, "we'll if cloning Hitler helps them find terrorists, I'm ok with it."

  6. Fuck that by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can have him back after you impeach and convict your traitorous president and dismantle your illegal domestic espionage complex.

    These BASTARDS talk about the law even as they wipe their asses with the Constitutions. If ANYONE should be black bagged, it's these SCUM.

  7. The damage to the freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"

    Does security clearance prevail on a breach of the constitution ?

    1. Re:The damage to the freedom by intermodal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The constitution is the highest law of this nation. Particularly the specific protections the constitution contains. If government uses "security clearance" to hide breaches of the constitution, anyone with clearance has an obligation to act. The constitution is above the government, not the other way around.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:The damage to the freedom by Xest · · Score: 1

      Does it prevail if he's not in country?

      Or is this where the Swedish rape allegations come in?

    3. Re:The damage to the freedom by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 0

      Fuck the constitiution. Regardless of any law, he did the right thing. I'm Fing sick of people holding up a document written by slaveholders as if its the moral standard upon which we should base all of our behaviors.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    4. Re:The damage to the freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dubya? Is that you?

      -- green led

    5. Re:The damage to the freedom by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      > In AMERIKA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

      FTFY

    6. Re:The damage to the freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's completely Orwellian. "These actions are illegal, but they are secret." That means they can not be prosecuted and by logical extension not be punished.

      This means that the rule of law does not apply because you have placed the guy with the "TOP SECRET" stamp above the law, and let your country degenerate into a dictatorship where exposing a crime is a crime, rather than the criminal act itself.

      The amount of double-think in this makes my head hurt and my heart bleed for all the good but powerless people trapped in the prison formerly known as the US. Even worse is that this cancer quite probably is going to be spread to other supposedly democratic countries without recourse for their populations.

      Thus, democracy dies again. Stabbed from within, just like the last time, but this time by the elite rather than the masses.

    7. Re:The damage to the freedom by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Well played, good sir.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    8. Re:The damage to the freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically anyone with clearance that didn't act should be the ones on trial here?

      Snowden is going to get awful lonely working at NSQ HQ all by himself.

    9. Re:The damage to the freedom by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic, but you're basically spot-on.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  8. Doing what is right... by mschiller · · Score: 3, Informative

    We have an obligation to do what is right and proper above any other law. In the sense of the USA government, the Constitution is the highest law and lies out what is right and proper. If our government is unjust and doing something unethical and against the constitution, then we must first do what is right and proper to protect the constitution.

    Our Government is given power by the people, if they steal powers without consent of the governn than the highest law calls us to correct the misdeed and that trumps the laws on secrecy, etc. A soldier need not follow an illegal order!

    Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense. But that doesn't mean we aren't called to follow the higher law if the top-secret stuff is in itself illegal.

    1. Re:Doing what is right... by intermodal · · Score: 2

      I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:Doing what is right... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.

      It's no laughing matter, but it's not treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution and this ain't it.

    3. Re:Doing what is right... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Also, I refuse your argument that this was in any way treason. The government will call it that, but the definition of treason does not fit this action, except in its weakest and most stretched-thin definition.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Doing what is right... by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.

      It's treason to tell the American people that their government is spying on them? I don't think so.

    5. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with all of that!

      Apparently there's a new reality TV show out now called "Look at everyone's dirty search results". Seems like a real hoot if you ask me and it should keep you busy enough behind your 99inch plasma to not get your lazy ass up off the couch and actually do something that will enact change in the world.

      That is of course if you find time between airing out the crease in your favourite armchair and posting on Slashdot on your iPad from the toilet.

    6. Re:Doing what is right... by mschiller · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh there is plenty of stuff that probably justifies a top secret stamp.

      Examples:
      1) Landing location for a major offensive in a declared war. [Eg how much better could Germany have prepared, in WWII, if they knew exactly which beaches we were planning on using and what day we were going to launch our offensive...]
      2) Technical specifications for NEW military hardware
      ===> Once the hardware is out there for a few years, say 7 years, the secret rating probably isn't as justified
      3) Technical specifications for Nuclear bombs (no age limit...)
      4) Identities of Our Spies operating in foreign countries
      ===> Note, I'm not stating that spying on folks is a correct thing. But if you accept that we must do it, because everyone else does it, then the spies identities must also be protected.

      And probably lot's of other examples.

    7. Re:Doing what is right... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      A lot of TOP SECRET information is related to weapons development, military operations and foreign intelligence gathering. The first is necessary because you don't want the enemy to know what your present and future capabilities are or use your research to shortcut their own versions of what you are developing. The second is necessary because too much knowledge of your military operations gives current and potential enemies the drop on you. The last is necessary because if foreign governments know how you're getting your information on them, they'll stop up your sources or feed you bullshit through them.

    8. Re:Doing what is right... by mschiller · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Since I reject that spying on the American people can be justified without a Warrant for the specific person/information that is to be found. Eg the 4th amendment.

      1) Releasing sensitive information on how we spy on Terrorists/other countries can easily be argued to comfort or aid "terrorists". Therefore the US Government will at least consider the charge of Treason.

      Do I agree that this material aids terrorists? Not really. But that doesn't matter they will make the argument.

      And for some of the sheeple in the US, that argument will per persuasive because we are all to ready to give up our liberties for "security".

    9. Re:Doing what is right... by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.

      Usually the important things to classify are the details, not the existence of big programs. Walker was a traitor for giving codes to the USSR, but it was hardly a secret that we encrypted naval communications. Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge. The Pentagon talks about them in press releases! What's secret is their exact capabilities and the details of their construction. When the government attempts to keep the existence of big programs like this secret, it's usually to keep it from the public, not the bad guys. If we're dealing with terrorists who don't realize that their electronic communications may be monitored, then we have nothing to worry about.

    10. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a quote from your declaration of independence. I suggest you read it:

      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

    11. Re:Doing what is right... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.

      It's no laughing matter, but it's not treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution and this ain't it.

      It's worth noting that 'treason' is one of the very few(possibly only, I can't remember if there are any others) offenses specifically defined in the constitution, rather than being left to "eh, congress will write some laws when they get together, and the several states already have things in place to keep murder and cannibalism to a minimum". And that's because the framers knew how... versatile... 'treason' can be if you allow it to be defined by whatever butthurt government is vexed with somebody at the moment.

    12. Re:Doing what is right... by kimvette · · Score: 2

      Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense. But that doesn't mean we aren't called to follow the higher law if the top-secret stuff is in itself illegal.

      Those who forbid revealing the government acting in an illegal manner are the ones guilty of treason and ought to be executed; NOT Snowden, who was carrying out his duty by informing The People that the Constitution is being systematically raped.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty of older military equipment out there that very few people have access to the technical specifications on. This is because it is very cost effective to set up countermeasures against the equipment if you know the technical specifications. For example, if someone released information that a Stinger missile only had a max altitude of 4,000ft and could go no higher, everyone would fly at like 4001ft if they knew they had to deal with Stingers. Or would fly at 3500ft to bait Stingers. I don't know the actual specifications, but it's just an example. That technical secrecy can also be pretty pricy when it comes to weapons export...they might tell you the export version can only go to 3000ft, but since you're such good friends they'll sell you the real version for the same price.

    14. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nukes are probably on par, at best, with other key military technologies. I'm not saying you should downrate your idea on permanent secrecy for nuke specs - I'm saying 7 years isn't nearly enough for a lot of other military tech.

    15. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's another major reason to classify - needle in a haystack.

      If you just blanket classify everything that might be touching something actually sensitive then someone who gets their hands on 'classified' information may or may not be getting anything useful. If you only classify actually important things then anyone getting 'classified' material knows they have something vital.

    16. Re:Doing what is right... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I question the justification for most "top secret" government information.

      Oh there is plenty of stuff that probably justifies a top secret stamp.

      Attacking a straw man: it's easier than leaving an insightful comment which follows the topic of conversation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Doing what is right... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense. But that doesn't mean we aren't called to follow the higher law if the top-secret stuff is in itself illegal.

      Rubbish and rhetorical fallacy handed down by politicians. Failure to follow the classification system is not automatically treason, because the US Government does not just classify what would/could be confidential based on national security. The US Government (and I'm sure we could say the same exact thing for most Governments) classifies anything that may be embarrassing or illegal to cover their actions. As an example, read through everything that Bradley Manning released. Very little of what he released related to national security. It was mostly cover ups of illegal acts, collusion letters, and politicians conspiring with each other.

      The only argument from the US Government on Abu Ghraib was that the Abu Ghraib dumps of illegal activities pissed people off. The relation to national security was that victims and victim countrymen may attack the US in retaliation. Well duh! The US was violating human rights in such a way as most US people that looked at the issue were horrified, let alone the populace that was being tortured. They were covering it up by making everything "TOP SECRET" instead of holding anyone accountable for the illegal acts.

      Whistle blowers are supposed to have protection under the 1st amendment. But what we will see is yet another whistle blower punished by this administration, who has jailed more whistle blowers than all other previous administrations combined. And by the way, the only people punished for Abu Ghraib were soldiers, nobody involved in the cover up was punished. Similar to the punishment for Fast and Furious, or pick anything else we have found out the Government is doing which is illegal.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:Doing what is right... by trboyden · · Score: 1

      That's the big difference operational security versus blanket administrative keeping secrets. Spying on foreigners = operational security; spying on Americans = administrative keeping secrets/authoritarian government. The NSA is supposed to be used for counter intelligence against foreign spies, not spy on Americans and controlling the populace. The administrative side of the government should not be allowed to keep secrets, period. I have no problem with the NSA doing a reverse look up based on terrorist communicating with an American citizen. That's a limited search with a reasonable suspicion per the 4th amendment. I also don't believe for a second that they don't have the actual content of the conversations. They may not be able to use them legally without getting a court order, but you know they can bring them up in a second as soon as they get that order (which is a rubber stamp operation of the secret FISA court). The fact that we even have secret courts is a problem. Justice can only be had publicly, with both sides having equal representation, with all facts on the table, reviewed and judged by our fellow citizens.

    19. Re:Doing what is right... by DizTorDed · · Score: 1

      It amazes me what we get for our monthly cell service.

    20. Re:Doing what is right... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      (0) is more important than (1) therefore the interests of (0) overrides the interests of (1).

      After all, if (1) were more important than (0), then it should be perfectly okay to carpet bomb a whole city in order to kill suspected terrorists... right?

      Let's not talk about what constitutes "harm" or even "acceptable harm." The notion of the government ignoring the very laws which are intended to limit what the government can do is a HUGE issue.

      What is "constitutional law"? How is it different from regular law? Why does constitutional law focus so much on what the powers of the people are and what they government is not allowed to infringe upon? Frankly, it is not quite for the government to decide when the constitution is not relevant or that other interests are "more important."

      If more government is the answer to the problem, then I say we need a branch of government whose sole responsibility is "constitutional oversight." Because we really need it.

    21. Re:Doing what is right... by guibaby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

      Unless we are the enemy, I don't see how this definition fits what this guy did. I don't have all of the details, so I hesitate to comment on whether this guys is a hero or a scoundrel, but on its face, without the facts. I do not see how this man has even broken the law. If he had to take the oath all federal employees take:

      I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

      Then he has lived up to his oath. If he did not take that oath, then everyone else in the room presumably did. I am sure he signed a contract that lays out the details of his clearance. But no contract is superior to The Constitution. The Constitution is our contract with our government. If they fail to live up to their end of the contract we vote them out.

      I saw a comment earlier in this post or another that basically said, "I don't understand why Americans aren't marching in the street over this." The answer is simple. While we do not always have faith in our government, we do have faith in our Constitution. We understand that no matter what the issue is, we have the power to fix it. We have the government we have chosen and therefore the one we deserve. We understand that every congress critter, president, judge and federal employee has the obligation to determine, independently, what is proper under the constitution. We understand in the end, if we really want the government to change what they are doing, all we have to do is vote.

      Here is a hint: Stop voting for republicans and democrats, at least for congress. The collusion that happens between politicians to forward the goals of the party (which is only to get an elected majority) is causing a large percentage of the problems we are seeing today.

      --
      Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
    22. Re:Doing what is right... by rnturn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed.

      I saw a report on RT last night where an interviewee stated that there were on the order of 90,000,000 documents defined as classified in some way or another in 2011 alone. ($DIETY I hope I remembered that wrong because that number is astounding.) There's can't possibly be that much information generated in that year that needed that kind of protection. Unless, of course, the Govt. is employing some sort of needle-in-a-haystack, Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-warehouse-style classification where you classify pretty much everything to make it more difficult to determine just what is the ``secret'' wheat amongst all that chaff. At some point, though,nobody's allowed to talk about anything that the govt. does because it's all classified.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    23. Re:Doing what is right... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.

      You should look up the case United States v. Reynolds. It is the case that established the state secret doctrine that allows the government to keep information out of court cases on national security grounds. It turns out that in this seminal case, the government used the threat of damage to national security to hide negligence. So yeah, I question whether a lot of classified material really needs to be classified, and whether it's being done for honest reasons.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    24. Re:Doing what is right... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge.

      There is really no way to know if that's true.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    25. Re:Doing what is right... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm quite familiar with that case. It's one of the reasons I'm as skeptical as I am of the processes used. I think it is clear that auditing of any and all government secrets is necessary. The abuse is just too likely, and if anything has been demonstrated by history, common.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    26. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hate posting AC, but don't want to undo moderation and your post is wrong on every count.

      "Landing location for a major offensive in a declared war. [Eg how much better could Germany have prepared, in WWII, if they knew exactly which beaches we were planning on using and what day we were going to launch our offensive...]"

      Its really funny you mention that, because Germany *did* know. And we knew that they knew. Or, at least a small number of high level people knew. But they couldn't take action on it because doing so would reveal that we knew that they knew. So guess why the devastation of D-Day was so... devastating.

      "Technical specifications for NEW military hardware"

      Wow. Its clear you have no idea about what constitutes classified material or why it is classified. I'm guessing you're one of those people who just assumes the military has all sorts of high tech stuff that somehow isn't more than a rumor (at best) outside of it. I suppose it depends on what you are defining as "technical specifications" and "NEW military hardware".

      For one, new has nothing to do with it -- I hate to break it to you, but the military doesn't have advanced alien technology or anything like it. "Technical specifications" on our nuclear armaments are -- as far as I know -- still classified. They are far from new, and in fact quite outdated by now. For another, other types of "military hardware" have completely open technical specifications. Or did you think that when the US Army switched handguns from M1911 to whatever the 9mm is it was all hush hush, double secret handshake, TOP SECRET?

      "Technical specifications for Nuclear bombs (no age limit...)"

      Okay, you got one right. Almost. Actually, there is a term limit after which there is review.

      "Identities of Our Spies operating in foreign countries"

      Not really. Just look at a previous administration's outing of one of those spies currently operating in a foriegn country. Oh, you want a citation instead of unsubstantiated statements like the ones I'm quoting? okay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

      Truth is, what level of classification is used for something has little to do with the material itself and more to do with how it was developed. Just like the ultrasecret fiasco that led to needless deaths at D-Day we still have a system that (largely) imposes controls based on the source. HUMINT developed by a normal agent is not top secret. SIGINT very possibly might be (particularly due to caveats). And in practice we still have a broken classification system, despite attempts at reform (the reduction to confidential/secret/top secret) and the more recent attempts at information sharing (which appear to be more of a 'one agency to rule them all' approach which is hardly surprising given the abuse of caveats and the tendency of bureaucracies to grab power).

    27. Re:Doing what is right... by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on if you think anything anti-government counts as treason. Some think the government is somewhat anti-freedom, which is another form of treason? In this case, I wonder about the secrecy of the documents he released myself. Just saying a document is "top secret" doesn't make it top secret, I'm sorry. It has to contain info that would endanger lives or the good of the country. You can't have douchebags marking every document "top secret" just to prevent it from being shared because they know it will incriminate them. Did these documents contain the info gathered or just let us know that info was being gathered?

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    28. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every piece of document produced by the "secret" program is going to have a "classified" status by definition. It is entirely possible to produce 90 million classified documents. It just gives you an idea about the scope of the "secret" activity of US government and the level of "transparency".

    29. Re:Doing what is right... by Arker · · Score: 1

      Treason? Yes. Applies to all the other people (most or all more senior and thus more culpable) that were aware of this and did NOT do what Snowden did. Those are your traitors.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    30. Re:Doing what is right... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Another reason this stuff is kept secret is to prevent courts from evaluating its legality. For instance, Anwar al-Awlaki's father sued in federal court to not have his son (a US citizen) killed in a drone strike. The Obama administration argued, in part, that they couldn't defend it in court because to do so would make public the existence of US drones in Yemen. This despite the fact that the existence of US drones in Yemen had been reported in the media.

      It kind of reminds me of this classic exchange:

      Ambassador DeSadaskyOur Doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a Doomsday gap.
      President Murkey Muffley: This is preposterous! I've never approved of anything like that!
      DeSadasky: Our source was the New York Times.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    31. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's because the framers knew how... versatile... 'treason' can be if you allow it to be defined by whatever butthurt government is vexed with somebody at the moment.

      It also protects the government buttheads that pass and enforce laws in such a way as might be viewed as treasonus to "we the people" such as the unPATRIOTic ACT etc.

    32. Re:Doing what is right... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Did these documents contain the info gathered or just let us know that info was being gathered?

      The latter. Whatever you think of Wikileaks, this was not a Wikileaks style dump a bazillion documents. He was very careful about what he released.

    33. Re:Doing what is right... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      really? really?

      let's start with a couple off top of my head from wwii... ...the Norden bombsight, an advance over previous methods (namely, praying) that was akin to laser guided vs non-laser guided. ...the abilities of our codebreakers and first, early computation machines. ...the site of the D-day invasion ...the fact that after nuking two japanese cities, we had no more bombs and if they didnt surrender we would have had to invade anyway (worlds biggest bluff) ...the manhatten project, which the russians succeeded in stealing anyway

      cold war era... ...the hydrogen bomb ...many of the exact capabilites and design specifcs of the SR71 family and their one of a kind engines are STILL classified ...the capabilities of the KH-11 satellites and their bretheren ...the stealth fighter and bomber projects (f117 and b2)

      modern day... ...the alien immigration/trading post on the dark side of the moon (j/k)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    34. Re:Doing what is right... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that in the 90,000,000 pages per year of classified documents generated each year, surely most of them must be genuinely on the scale of the very short list you've provided? I'm not buying it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    35. Re:Doing what is right... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      What if the spies have names like Google, Microsoft, AOL, Facebook, and Apple?

    36. Re:Doing what is right... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Breaking confidentiality isn't treason. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

    37. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All in all it looks as if intelligence agencies tried to approach a problem that is hard to grab with huge sets of data, expected watered down results and hoped to be able to filter the interesting pieces at the cost of privacy. I can understand that but would never accept it, ive seen too much of those methods and how they did end for some people.

      Nations have secrets and try to protect them by prosecuting anyone that endangers those secrets, no matter what it is, just based on a label that has been assigned to files. No doubt some are really important and should not leak, it would just be helping satisfy the curiosity of others without any value to it.

      But there are secrets like the ones discussed here, and marking things secret is taking insiders the right to protest against it or express an opinion about it. It is simply not a democratic process, it is the result of a democratic procedure, but enforced in a different way. Although anyone working there was raised believing that it is this process that makes the difference between them and the enemy they have no right to make use of it. Those things usually dont apply in such organizations. Maybe some believe the difference between them and the enemy lies in how much other nations can be exploited or how wealthy a nation is and how this wealth can be tweaked, but then again its the methods that make the difference.

      The definition of treason therefore applies to all forms of secrets just by its label, it therefore very much depends on the process of "labeling" itself, which is what really should be analyzed and which already is the base of the discussion here.

      Treason is hard to define when secrets are of illegal nature, by moral standards, in common sense or by law because it opposes the democratic process that stood behind a secret to the standards that are the base of the democratic process. This is the real core of the problem and it will not be solved by prosecuting the whistleblower. The wish for more transparency is a logical result of these circumstances and thats where those movements (transparent vs. non-transparent, intrusive wealth-gain vs. impartial fairness) clash on a regular basis. Forget right-wing or left-wing thinking, if in power most people are influenced by their power as well as the information they are given and keeping decision making transparent is one (of several ways) out of this influence and into some consistency and more responsibility. Id not say people in power are bad in general or that they have too much power, it is just the question where some twists in decision making stem from and why.

      By watching such cases from an international perspective, most cases of mass surveillance were justified by law or government, therefore that does not necessarily make them the right thing to do. History shows many such events and how they worked, and they usually were somewhere else, only enabled by a delusive system or whatever explanation works best for you. But nevertheless such systems become independent and more or less self-righteous, self-justifying by some weak results. If there are no results, there will sooner or later be people willing to make some evidence up in the next step just because of the ability to do so or some even weaker hints and whoops you have a problem expressing your opinion, be maneuvered into an extremist niche or land in jail although youve done nothing wrong and the democratic process is exploitable in general. The USA is probably very far away from that, but the direction is questionable and prosecuting whistleblowers became more important than talking about the actual problem.

      If all the information exchange and speed of communication available today is worth something, then it is time to learn not only from own errors, but also from other nations errors. And by learning i mean not laughing at or disparaging their exposure, but thinking about their cause and effect. There is no real efficiency in spearheading in all directions and retreating as fast as possible if it was exposed.

    38. Re:Doing what is right... by davidhoude · · Score: 1

      I guess the mistake was giving him a security clearance. While what he exposed may help change policy for the better, and while many people hold him in high regard for what he did...the fact still remains he violated state security by revealing classified documents. I cannot say what he did was morally wrong, but I am sure most of what the government does is 'illegal' -- there is no way anyone really thought this wasn't happening, and the result of this doesn't seem to have too many people up in arms. Not that it wasn't morally justified, but none of the military industrial complex is moral IMO. While he may be a martyr, he probably deserves the legal consequences. Don't get into that line of work if you don't have the stomach for it, cause it will happen whether you like it or not unfortunately.

    39. Re:Doing what is right... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      If more government is the answer to the problem, then I say we need a branch of government whose sole responsibility is "constitutional oversight." Because we really need it.

      THAT was what the SCOTUS was *supposed* to be, when the BOR/Constitution was written. It seems to have morphed into a black-robed "rubber-stamp" of whatever Congress/POTUS sends their way..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    40. Re:Doing what is right... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Oh there is plenty of stuff that probably justifies a top secret stamp.

      Examples: 1) Landing location for a major offensive in a declared war. [Eg how much better could Germany have prepared, in WWII, if they knew exactly which beaches we were planning on using and what day we were going to launch our offensive...] 2) Technical specifications for NEW military hardware ===> Once the hardware is out there for a few years, say 7 years, the secret rating probably isn't as justified 3) Technical specifications for Nuclear bombs (no age limit...) 4) Identities of Our Spies operating in foreign countries ===> Note, I'm not stating that spying on folks is a correct thing. But if you accept that we must do it, because everyone else does it, then the spies identities must also be protected.

      And probably lot's of other examples.

      However, if you look at the vast majority of stuff released on expired official secrets/state secrets legislation, it revolves around public expenditure that was a little bit embarassing, or the coverup of an affair, or even war crimes.

      There are genuine secrets too, but most uses of the "SECRET" stamp are fraudulent and abusive.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    41. Re:Doing what is right... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The problem is, as you pointed out, what it is. But also, there's another problem with using the judiciary -- a case has to be filed *AND* it has to be accepted. We need more than the SCOTUS offers. We need a constitutional review system which handles matters in a way not unlike the patent system. Sure, there might be rulings which might be questionable or otherwise contested, but perhaps THEN the SCOTUS would do its job.

      There should be no (D) or (R) associated with the names of those serving in any judiciary role. I would go so far as to mark associations with a political party as a disqualification from holding judicial office. The system is out of hand.

    42. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have an obligation to do what is right and proper above any other law. In the sense of the USA government, the Constitution is the highest law and lies out what is right and proper. If our government is unjust and doing something unethical and against the constitution, then we must first do what is right and proper to protect the constitution.

      So we can break the law, but protect & follow it? Did you just contradict yourself?

    43. Re:Doing what is right... by Arker · · Score: 1

      Just because people keep repeating it doesnt make it any less bunk.

      The only real 'dump' from WIkileaks was in a case where it was the banality of the majority of the information that was really the story. Hundreds of thousands of documents that had no possible national security sensitivity that had been simply classifed by reflex. You could (and IIRC they actually did) go through and pull out a handful of documents that were evidence of other, specifically illegal, behaviour, and that's one story. But the larger story here that also needed to be told was how the government is reflexively classifying *everything* without any regards to whether there is any legitimate reason to do so or not. That's fundamentally contradictory to the basic assumptions of the classification system, and it indicates an absolute breakdown of government function here.

      And you just cant make that case without being able to pull out the whole 'dump' and go through it document by document.

      At first they only allowed selected people from major newspapers to go through them, iirc, and only later after they had been analyzed and the contents was known, one of the newspapers, not wikileaks, dumped the whole stack.

      The whole meme of 'wikileaks just dumped everything irresponsibly' is what us old-timers used to call disinformation. They probably have another word for it today.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    44. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 'identities of Our Spies operating in Our Own Country'? If you publish those, it would compromise their ability to counter-spy against foreign agents who don't have the same obligation.

      And if you don't publish them, then you endorse secret government spying on Americans.

      What's it gonna be?

    45. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "English history!" roared the silver-maned senior Senator from his state indignantly. "What's the matter with American history? American history is as good as any history in the world!"
      P. 97, paperback, Catch-22

    46. Re:Doing what is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mistake was in usurping the public's freedom for power that doesn't have accountability. Snowden knew what he was doing and he accepts the consequences of doing it as evidenced by the actions that he has taken.

  9. Anyone who is surprised is a fool by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even Snowden knew this would happen. There's a reason he's gone public with his identity. Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.

      Do you know where he is? Have you seen him? He's gone public with his identity, but he's still essentially in hiding. If he disappeared and never surfaced again, I guess he just has a great hiding spot...

    2. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Even Snowden knew this would happen. There's a reason he's gone public with his identity. Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.

      I'd still be pretty nervous, if I were in his shoes, about letting the feds take me alive(even if the public eye doesn't allow them to give you a full Bagram special, prolonged solitary confinement is pretty harrowing and de-facto entirely legal); but it probably does reduce his odds of just mysteriously disappearing to one of our black sites.

    3. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by intermodal · · Score: 1

      If you read his interviews, you'd know that he knew that was the case before doing what he did.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure he's quite nervous.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    5. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by xtracto · · Score: 1

      He can always get suicided...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    6. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but with the suspicion of foul play and the attempt to characterize those who believe that to be crazy conspiracy theorists.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Snowden knew this would happen. There's a reason he's gone public with his identity. Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.

      Oh, it will have been the Triades or the deadly Hongkong traffic. Or food allergies.

      At any rate, nothing's new under the sun. Try reading http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/27/exclusive_nixon_white_house_counsel_john and see whether you find anything that would not be perfectly legal nowadays under Patriot Act and whatever.

    8. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that auto-erotic asphyxiation "accidents" with underage prostitutes are the 14th leading cause of death in Hong Kong. It would be truly tragic to see such a fine upstanding young man get caught up in this seedy underworld.

    9. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden wants credit for this. And that's all. He's parading around, pontificating like he's on Facebook.

      He's not going to disappear or such with the help of the gov't. He'll just end up either in asylum or in jail due to a breaching his agreement with the agency (contracts and employees agree to work there under oath BTW, don't like it, quit, no diff like any other employer). His release of classified info will not change the agency's mission, only Congress (i.e. your vote) can change it. And guess what? Due process and Democracy is SLOW: cause we all have a say.

      This is a political snafu. And a wild goose chase. This will create nothing but news for libertarians, much like Binney (gov't spending wastefulness) or Drake (political payback).

      The guy only outted one program (of course who knows he's got more info) and didn't reveal any sources or means, if you consider wiretapping a huge secret on what the agency does, did you just crawl out of a cave? And does he know the whole workflow? Likely not: he was a field tech that happened to see streams of data here and there, not analyze them against FISA or USC18 for intel information. Likely pipes that come in and out of the country, much like border patrol. And data is just that... data. It is not information.

    10. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Trying to read your post, that's where the real wild goose chase is.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    11. Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >BTW, don't like it, quit, no diff like any other employer
      I would normally agree if this was the case for a normal job. Snowden was dealing with a case of serious moral judgement that deal with the people of the US. Quitting his job with his mouth closed means that he failed in his civic duty to people of the US.

      > if you consider wiretapping a huge secret on what the agency does, did you just crawl out of a cave
      It's one thing to speculate upon events and environments, it's another thing to judge and act upon hard facts. Now that there is reliable proof about this form of corruption, the people now have another strong cause to take responsibility for the authorities. The people's cause to take responsibility would certainly be weaker without this evidence.

  10. The "USA" isn't calling for anything at this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thanks for wasting my time, Taco.

  11. Guess we'll find out ... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Guess we'll find out if Hong Kong was a good choice. The extradition attempts should be interesting.

    1. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      We will see. Honk Kong has an extradition treaty with the US, but that was in place during British oversight, before HK was handed back to the Chinese. I'm guessing that the Chinese will probably hand him over, especially considering the US president is meeting with the Chinese President in person. Snowden will probably be some sort of trade concession, but that is just my guess.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    2. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by biodata · · Score: 1

      Sorry for my ignorance, not being from either country, but why does China need to make any trade concessions? I thought they are winning at trade. Surely it would be the other way round?

      --
      Korma: Good
    3. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      Was he ever really in Hong Kong?

    4. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      I did not necessarily mean trade, as in products, rather, we will trade something that China wants in return for them sending him back.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    5. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It is doubtful that the president has anything equal in value to bargain with. Trade agreements are so valuable that the president is just a yes-man to the people that really decide on them...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      They haven't even charged him yet. First they have to charge him, then the international warrant, then extradition proceedings. I'll be interested to see how fast they can cut through all that red tape.

    7. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Bismark once noted that no one wants to know how laws and sausage are made. Thankfully we have the USDA and FDA to protect us from unscrupulous sausage makers. We can take solace in the knowledge that someone is looking out for us and squeamishness aside, we can demand to know how sausage is made and not be afraid. But what is to protect us from the law makers?

      Since September 2001, many decisions have been made for us under the banners of "National security" and "Protecting America." Our politicians have made adult decisions for us and treated us as squeamish children who wouldn't want to know (couldn't stand to know) what was being done to "keep America safe." But this is an insulting and pernicious stance for politicians to take. Americans need to discuss these issues in the open-- that is in part what makes America America.

      At first, I was wondering what kind of idiot would pick a country that has an extradition treaty with the US. But I think I now see the shrewd choice that it was. America often chastises China for its human and civil rights record (and rightly so). If a Chinese citizen were to disclose information regarding a secret Chinese surveillance program, there is a good chance he would be given political asylum in the US. Dissidents fighting for civil and human rights have often been accepted into the US because of a shared goal of freedom and transparency. If the US demands and Hong Kong accepts (and by proxy China because they have veto power) a request for extradition, the United States of America would lose its moral high ground to tell China or any other country what to do. Lets not forget that America had legalized slavery and until only 40 short years ago, an institutionalized second class status for non-whites. America has "found Jesus" and feels the need to scold other nations that do not share our ideals of democracy and freedom. Extraditing Snowden would show us to be the shallow hypocrites that we so often are.

      President Obama said he welcomed the chance to discuss the balance between civil liberties and privacy in protecting America. In that case, I think we should thank Edward Snowden for this chance to start this much needed discussion on sausage making.

    8. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Shhhhhhhhhhhh. The intelligent thing for him to have done is use several relays, with them terminating in Hong Kong for his broadcast.

      If he's smart, he'll be in a part of the world where neither satellite nor extraction team can get to him. In other words, choose some place thousands of miles away from everyone else, with an overhead canopy. Would make finding him a bitch and a half.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:Guess we'll find out ... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am not sure either we would weight much in a trade bargain. Perhaps Cuba could have been a batter choice: there is no trade bargains between USA and Cuba, no extradition treaty, and given how long USA has been willing to kill Fidel Castro without success, the place seems quite safe.

  12. Of course ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"

    Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?

    This guys is brave for identifying himself and releasing this information, but I fear he's going to get absolutely destroyed in this process.

    I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.

    Of course, the biggest fear is that now that Microsoft, Google, and almost everyone else have rolled over to help the US do this spying, every other country is going to demand the same. I'm hard pressed to see how they could refuse given the precedent they've set.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Of course ... by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"

      Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?

      No, no it's not. That's the *point*. The law has been twisted and re-interpreted so that the activities that Congress intended to stop are now allowable. PRISM only collects metadata and launders intelligence through foreign services. That slips through a loophole, so that no laws are being broken.

      That's why Snowden (indeed, any leaker anywhere) is not protected by the Whistleblowers' act, that's why he will go to jail and that's why NSA surveillance will continue: Because the law is insufficient to stop those who operate without transparency. No matter what law you create, agencies who operate without scrutiny will find a way around the law. There is no oversight to tell them when they've gone too far.

      A system of laws require enforcement, which requires oversight and accountability. Take any of those legs away and the whole system collapses into a totalitarian mess. We are way too late to prevent this. The most important question of the 21st century may be, 'How will mankind prosper under Big Brother?'

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    2. Re:Of course ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, no it's not. That's the *point*. The law has been twisted and re-interpreted so that the activities that Congress intended to stop are now allowable.

      I remain unconvinced it's Constitutional, at which point, it can't possibly be legal.

      No matter how many legal opinions you get that say it's OK.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Of course ... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.

      A justified fear. But Snowden also illustrates that government has gone so far that people are beginning to be willing to oppose it against their own self-interest.

      Interesting times.

    4. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, none of what Snowden specifically revealed IS against the law.

      THAT is the entire problem.

    5. Re:Of course ... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      If it violates specific provisions of The Constitution, isn't that against the law?

      "... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the ... things to be seized"

      Excerpt from: "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order"

      "The order ... requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems..."

      IANAL, but I would argue that there is no possible way that the NSA has "probable cause" to obtain the phone records of all Verizon customers. Therefore, their actions directly violate the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.

    6. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as I saw the TV report, I figured this guy is either dead or looking at a lifetime of prison. How old is he? 29? He traded his life for this?

  13. Some people in Congress? by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We should find out who 'some people in Congress' are, post their names, and make sure constituents in their voting jurisdiction fill their inboxes. And, parade their names all over the Internet so the other people in Congress will see them be vilified. Nobody here wants to see us continuing in the direction of a totalitarian police state.

    According to the article, the people in Congress that are named are 'Republican head of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers' and 'Peter King, the chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee'.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re: Some people in Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Diane Feinstein, for starters.

    2. Re:Some people in Congress? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      We should find out who 'some people in Congress' are, post their names, and make sure constituents in their voting jurisdiction fill their inboxes. And, parade their names all over the Internet so the other people in Congress will see them be vilified. Nobody here wants to see us continuing in the direction of a totalitarian police state.

      According to the article, the people in Congress that are named are 'Republican head of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers' and 'Peter King, the chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee'.

      and if they want him exradited.. file some charges first.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re: Some people in Congress? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Diane Feinstein, for starters.

      Please, Snowden should have gone straight to Feinstein's office with his complaints, and she would have made things right.

      You don't go straight to the press, when we have people like Diane to represent the People's interests and fight for the rights of her constituents.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Some people in Congress? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Some other info on these two gentlemen:

      • Mike Rogers was the primary sponsor of CISPA
      • Peter King was a former fundraiser for the Irish Republican Army, which he says was different: they were freedom fighters, of course, not real terrorists
    5. Re:Some people in Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that surprises me -- although it probably shouldn't -- is how stupid the various congresscritters who knew about this were in handing over this kind of power to an agency. Apparently they've all forgotten the kind of power the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had because of the dossiers he kept on politicians as well as other citizens.

      So either Feinstein, Rogers, King, et al. are too stupid to understand the implications of the NSA tracking their phone calls to boyfriends, girlfriends, mistresses, high-dollar political donors, etc, etc, or they've got (or think they've got) some way of sidestepping this surveillance that the rest of us don't.

    6. Re:Some people in Congress? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      --- We need more Ron Paul!

      His son, Rand Paul, will do quite well instead... One of the few real patriots in the Senate...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    7. Re:Some people in Congress? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      of course they were. it says Republican right there on the label!

  14. Damage by geekymachoman · · Score: 2

    And the "damage" done is that the people, finally got informed on what's going on, really. They now need to determine to what extent and what will be needed to remedy the situation. Extradition and severe prosecution after that is a message to all others potential whistleblowers.

    Funny how every time there's a " information leak" like this, it reveals that the Gov and/or Companies are doing some bad stuff, and nothing else happens.
    They'll not stop surveillance or testing experimental drugs on poor countries children, it will be just swept under the rug and whistleblower put to jail and then they gonna pretend everything is ok, while people will stop caring until it starts directly affecting them and their lives.

  15. Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD879 --- 8979 signed on in two days.
    Also, over 4000 for repeal of the PATRIOT act so far and over 2000 for the impeachment of Roger Vinson, whose signature authorized some ridiculously broad data collection orders. And 11825 for the resignation of President Obama. I mention this last because people have been calling for his head for years and it's not clear what issue is the biggest factor in people calling for his resignation.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      um.... he's a brazen fucking liar?

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's not clear what issue is the biggest factor in people calling for his resignation.

      He's not a Republican. That's the biggest factor. It doesn't matter what he does, whether he acts like a Republican, or whether he doesn't. They just want an actual Republican in office.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by cphilo · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD879 --- 404 Page not found The page you're looking for is currently unavailable to view We've been upgrading our site. It is possible that this page has been moved or renamed. You can use your browser's Back button to return to the previous page, go to the homepage, or you can browse or search for the information you're looking for. If you think that you have reached this page due to an error on our part, please let us know.

    4. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link you provided to pardon-edward-snoweden did not work. Here is a petition the Washington Post links to. 15k signatures so far. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

    5. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Problem is, you can't pardon someone until after he's been convicted.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    6. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by rnturn · · Score: 1

      ``... people have been calling for his head for years and it's not clear what issue is the biggest factor in people calling for his resignation.''

      You're kidding, right?

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    7. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      We have several going "scandals" right now. There's the wiretapping, the IRS, Benghazi, or the cumulative effects of all that plus all the older ones?

    8. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD879 --- 404 Page not found The page you're looking for is currently unavailable to view We've been upgrading our site. It is possible that this page has been moved or renamed. You can use your browser's Back button to return to the previous page, go to the homepage, or you can browse or search for the information you're looking for. If you think that you have reached this page due to an error on our part, please let us know.

      Latest count is 34,647.

    9. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
      Now at 37K signatures.

    10. Re:Meanwhile, Americans are asking for a pardon. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Latest count, 65,886 signatures.

  16. Consider the Ecuadorian embassy by jools33 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear they do a really good B&B deal.

  17. It really annoys the hell out of me... by Endimiao · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust. Quoting the Guardian "Snowden is a 29-year-old high-school dropout who trained for the Army Special Forces before an injury forced him to leave the military. His IT credentials are apparently limited to a few “computer” classes he took at a community college in order to get his high-school equivalency degree—courses that he did not complete. His first job at the NSA was as a security guard. Then, amazingly, he moved up the ranks of the United States’ national security infrastructure: The CIA gave him a job in IT security. He was given diplomatic cover in Geneva. He was hired by Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor, which paid him $200,000 a year to work on the NSA’s computer systems." .. Wtf are people smoking in the US?

    1. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What does that have to do with anything? Maybe he is skilled enough to actual advance without having a degree. Other people doing it all the time.

      It is more a question if he did the right thing or not by coming forward with this information to the people of America, so they actual know that their government is spying on them, not matter what their rights might be. Anyone with 2 cents should know the correct answer to that one.

    2. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you think there's a chance he received just a tiny bit more training at Booz Allen? Maybe a teenie tiny bit?

      But more importantly, don't you see the irony that his "poor education" allowed him to know the difference between right and wrong where apparently you don't?

    3. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by hsmith · · Score: 2

      If anything he is smarter because he got a decent paying consulting gig at BAH and didn't bury himself in college debt to major in some worthless field.

    4. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by stanIyb · · Score: 2

      ... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust.

      What's wrong with dropping out of the piss-poor public education system in the US?

    5. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      ... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust.

      I know, right? They must have been nuts to place a guy, who apparently has the guts to do the morally and legally correct thing despite great personal danger, in a position of trust.

      Crazy.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      I didn't realise that one's qualifications were a measure of trustworthiness. We should play poker sometime. I'll deal.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      $200k? Dayum!

      But yeah it's scary that they put this guy in IT security at the NSA of all places. Most people with such qualifications would have a hard time doing better than pumping gas, secretary positions require more training with computers.

      On the other hand none of the PhDs at the NSA had the moral fortitude to leak this stuff.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust.

      I'm a high school dropout, and I've worked for IBM and Cisco and quit both jobs. I'm not even sucking the public teat.

      His first job at the NSA was as a security guard. Then, amazingly, he moved up the ranks of the United Statesâ(TM) national security infrastructure

      This is only amazing to people who have watched too many movies. The people who work in alphabet soup are just as competent as anyone else, no more and no less. Actually, if anything, they are probably less competent, because the government screens out a lot of creative, intelligent people in its quest to find those who will toe the line.

      Wtf are people smoking in the US?

      They could tell you, but unfortunately, it's still illegal at the federal level, in violation of our own scheduling guidelines.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In less than a three month tenure? Absolutely not. And that would be assuming the company had any training to offer in that area.

      Not to bash Booz here. Any company in this situation would be hiring people that could be immediately place on the project and likely hire for the clearance rather than the skill set.

    10. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a 3 month tenure? Highly unlikely, and thats assuming there was training in the company.

      Not to bash Booz here, most companies in that space are hiring for clearance so the resource can start immediately, not skill set.

    11. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Apparently college dropouts have a track record of messing up in their jobs (like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc). Indeed, shocking.

      --
      none
    12. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      ... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust. Quoting the Guardian "Snowden is a 29-year-old high-school dropout who trained for the Army Special Forces before an injury forced him to leave the military. His IT credentials are apparently limited to a few “computer” classes he took at a community college in order to get his high-school equivalency degree—courses that he did not complete. His first job at the NSA was as a security guard. Then, amazingly, he moved up the ranks of the United States’ national security infrastructure: The CIA gave him a job in IT security. He was given diplomatic cover in Geneva. He was hired by Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor, which paid him $200,000 a year to work on the NSA’s computer systems." .. Wtf are people smoking in the US?

      Did you miss this part? (I have a feeling you're not directly quoting the article since you seem to have left this out: "...his understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma." WTF does education have to do with the type of position you hold? Education =/= intelligence or talent. Your comment is fucking idiotic. Thankfully not everyone is so small-minded or even I (lacking a college degree) would not have been able to build the career I have today.

    13. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      But more importantly, don't you see the irony that his "poor education" allowed him to know the difference between right and wrong where apparently you don't?

      That's not irony. That's a non sequitur. Or are you unaware of the concept of a "mad scientist"? No, the only irony I see is you placing some sort of faith in "poor [educated]" people. Being "smarter" may place you to be more aware of how you can extend your lust for power over your duty to morality, but poorly educated people are quite able and do lust for power. The real difference, of course, is who is more likely to be caught and punished and for what crime. To that end, I'd suggest that you're a lot more likely to be caught and punished if what you do is unusual. Hence, in a higher murder area, murderers go free. Now, consider the probability of this clear case of abuse and corruption in the US government leading to an arrest and punishment and of whom it would apply.

      And that's the reason, of course, Snowden is a hero.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    14. Re: It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credentials do not equate ability.

    15. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Sedated2000 · · Score: 1

      There could be many reasons he dropped out of high school. There could be many reasons why he advanced in the NSA. While I don't believe that having high school and college diplomas make you an intelligent or skilled person, I also don't believe _not_ having them makes you automatically unqualified. I am compensated well and have a position of great responsibility at my current company. I have also never sat through a day of college. Clearly others see more value in what I have done and can demonstrate rather than how I learned it.

      I do sometimes wish I'd gone to college, but only because I feel I missed out on a lot of social benefits I might have received.

    16. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 1

      The job responsibility is "Stop the Terrorists" and we pay them an awful lot of money to do that. Since we're not being bombed constantly they must be doing that job and therefor deserve all the money they get and more.

      From their point of view I'm sure they realize that they don't stand a chance of intercepting anything and therefor just screw around all day.

    17. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      So basically from mopping the floor up to $200k/yr. with access to all this top secret data. This smells like it was "leaked" to cover up some bigger goings-on. This guy is a patsy.

    18. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But more importantly, don't you see the irony that his "poor education" allowed him to know the difference between right and wrong where apparently you don't?

      Well yes, that's the disadvantage of a poor education. To practise law or become a politician, you have to know the difference between winning and losing rather than between right and wrong. Right and wrong are naive notions for the unwashed masses. It makes the game more challenging that they are allowed to sit in juries and vote, but they'll swallow what the people with an education will sell them. That's why buying a believable lawyer or politician is expensive. It's a higher art form.

    19. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Simulant · · Score: 1

      AFAICT, our defense & intelligence agencies, and their contractors (especially their contractors) will take a high school dropout with a clearance over a PHD without one, any day of the week.

      That said, good for him if he progressed as far as he did without traditional credentials. They should not always be a requirement.

    20. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Just like in almost every job market, not having a high school diploma doesn't mean a whole lot when you have other specialized or connected degrees and experiences. In his case, even being trained for special forces would have been enough to open doors for him, especially doors that are interested in security clearance.

      Who you know, is a hell of a lot more important than what you know. I see it all the time in all kinds of fields.

    21. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust.

      He was hired by Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor, which paid him $200,000 a year to work on the NSAâ(TM)s computer systems." .. Wtf are people smoking in the US?

      Whatever it is we need to huff more of it.

    22. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with anything? Maybe he is skilled enough to actual advance without having a degree. Other people doing it all the time.

      I think OP was just pissed that he didn't see that job ad. It's a tough economy for IT geeks after all - cut him some slack :)

    23. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the PhD's have their student debts and prospective careers to look forward to. That kind of things might further disincentivise more than a few individuals.

    24. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: No from an Ivy League school has ever committed a crime or proven themselves untrustworthy, whereas people with only high school diplomas are low people who are incapable of the sort of higher thought required to understand morality.

    25. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Wtf are people smoking in the US?

      Some strong stuff, if it takes a high school dropout to know right from wrong.

      But I think it might be something in the kool ai--I mean water.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    26. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that makes sense to me is, he networked into the position. He has family within govt and stated he is worried about their careers after providing proof of our govt being domestic enemies.

      NEVER OBEY AN UNLAWFUL ORDER.

    27. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with dropping out of the piss-poor public education system in the US?

      Ouch, while I agree that it's pretty horrible...

      How many people drop out BECAUSE they are doing well there? (and want to do better because they are that good, that is)
      How often is a teenager's goal to "go study in a different country to better their education?"

      With that out of the way, here is the truth: dropping out is always due to either family problems and/or desire for quick cash, rather than conscious goals. Otherwise, people just pick the next perceived best: private schools or homeschooling. Each requires tons of cash and qualifications, respectively. Ergo, those forks aren't something a family suddenly decides when their child reaches their highschool-teens.

    28. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      Booz: "whoa, hey, not THAT moral!"

    29. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Renegade88 · · Score: 1

      I thought he was only working for Booz Allen Hamilton for 3 months. He would have been hired for the skills he already had, they don't train from the ground up. So no, I don't think he got much training from BAH in that short time.

    30. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by stanIyb · · Score: 1

      How often is a teenager's goal to "go study in a different country to better their education?"

      It doesn't matter, because having a piece of paper means little (especially if it's from a high school diploma). There are numerous ways to prove that you have ability besides just wasting your time getting a worthless piece of paper, and some employers actually try to evaluate potential employees rather than just relying on degrees and other such things.

      dropping out is always due to either family problems and/or desire for quick cash, rather than conscious goals.

      Since you said "always," I can say that that is false. Self-education.

      Each requires tons of cash and qualifications, respectively.

      Nope. In some states, homeschooling requires no qualifications, and it certainly does not require "tons of cash" (especially in the day and age of the Internet).

    31. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Endimiao,

      My last job before becoming a programmer was as a truck driver, before that I worked in a warehouse, before that kitchens ....... oh and I didn't have a CompSCi degree when I worked for the American, British, German or Canadian governments but hey since I don't have a degree I mustn't be a professional. Who cares that through diligence, hard work and self study that I improved my amateur self to the point that three PHD and and multiple Master's holders complemented me on my understanding of, design, development and upgrading with both research and production level software systems. Oh and that yes I was earning very very good money.

      Sometimes people do not do well in high school or college but can excell in their chosen field when they apply themselves.

      Thanks for failing to understand the basics, please return to your self absorbed navel gazing.

    32. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How many people drop out BECAUSE they are doing well there? (and want to do better because they are that good, that is)

      That's prevarication at best. People who are doing poorly in the shit-tacular environment of public school, which is basically a thinly veiled attempt to grind kids down before they become adults so that they don't retain any idealism when they are voters, may reasonably do much better in the Real World. I was poorly socialized in a way that caused me to be abused and harassed with the blessing of the faculty (who never lifted so much as a finger to attempt to address the issue, since I was being abused and harassed by their blessed jocks) and so I lived basically in hell from the point of sixth grade when I moved across town and was forced to bus to a new school instead of to my old school, even though it took about the same time on the bus (the city bus) either way... until the second semester of my sophomore year when I was permitted to take the CHSPE. Then I got a job as an assistant sysadmin, making $18/hour, without so much as a diploma. Hooray dot-com bubble!

      My anecdote is not, itself, data. But don't make the mistake of believing that because someone is doing poorly in school that they'll do poorly outside of school.

      There are important lessons to be learned in school, like "if you are well connected and/or important to the power structure you can do anything you like and never be punished" or "the people in power don't care about you, they just want to get paid, preferably as much as possible." With that said, the principal of my elementary school and my second high school both really seemed to care, and try to do things. I don't know who's running the elementary school today, but my second high school is now gone, turned into a home study program for other kids who were in my situation.

      With that out of the way, here is the truth: dropping out is always due to either family problems and/or desire for quick cash, rather than conscious goals.

      Fuck you and the horse that rode in on you. I now know why you are too cowardly to log in; you know that what you say is pure bullshit. Don't come back.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There could be many reasons why he advanced in the NSA.

      The most plausible reason is that he was possessed of a flexible morality that led him to be willing to become involved with crimes against The People to begin with; perhaps this flexibility also led him to become unwilling, and blow the whistle. Those who switch sides once may switch again.

      I do sometimes wish I'd gone to college, but only because I feel I missed out on a lot of social benefits I might have received.

      You'd have needed to go to a well-connected University for that, not just go to college. There's no social benefit to affiliating yourself with society's lower rungs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Request to Obama by muffen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr Obama,
    Can you please give me access to all your email and phone conversations? If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    1. Re:Request to Obama by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real irony here is that as a citizen, you should have more rights to request access to Obama's communication information than he has to request access to yours...

    2. Re:Request to Obama by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Mod up. Let's beat these fuckheads with their own sticks.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    3. Re:Request to Obama by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      He is just one guy. But what about asking the email and phone conversations of the top 0.1%? Think big, the real terrorists could be uncovered that way.

    4. Re:Request to Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Obama,

      Can you please give me access to all your email and phone conversations? If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

      What applies to niggers, doesn't apply to a sheriff. Move along.

    5. Re:Request to Obama by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      I think you'd find it much more interesting to start with Peter King.

  19. The traitors work in government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criminal acts are not covered by classification and Snowden was duty bound to release the information.

    1. Re:The traitors work in government by Holi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only way this is a crime is if actual information is released that hurts national defense. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself.

      I am not sure one could consider this national defense information.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:The traitors work in government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least this is contempt of Congress, as the NSA denied collecting data on millions of Americans when questioned under oath. Since the administration didn't correct that lie despite knowing the truth, they're conspirators.

      Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zRhjgynfhag

    3. Re:The traitors work in government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He release classified information after signing agreements not to. Punishable offense right there regardless of his intent.

    4. Re:The traitors work in government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way this is a crime is if actual information is released that hurts national defense. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself.

      I am not sure one could consider this national defense information.

      Only a fool would think the details of this program would never be made public. You can't keep secrets like this forever.

  20. Is not the real question in all this... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... why have not those in the position to, not prosecuted Obama for violating the US constitution and Bill of rights?
    All the evidence of Obama intent and his execution of his intentis in his own words and actions of signing, and there is plenty of this on youtube and executive orders.

    Exposing the facts of such violation does not break laws, simply because the Constitution and Bill of Rights over rule all other laws and attempted to get around the founders establish basis of our laws. For example, it is not considered legal to make a contracts to kill someone as that violates the base and as such is not recognized as being legal.

    1. Re:Is not the real question in all this... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      ... why have not those in the position to, not prosecuted Obama for violating the US constitution and Bill of rights? All the evidence of Obama intent and his execution of his intentis in his own words and actions of signing, and there is plenty of this on youtube and executive orders.

      AFAIK one cannot be charged with violating the Constitution. A person or organization can bring a lawsuit and have a law declared unconstitutional. But a person cannot be charged with such.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Is not the real question in all this... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      You can't be charged with it, but the president can be impeached for it.

  21. The right and wrong way to go about these things. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner,

    The above is a key comment. Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.

    There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.

    Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  22. One is not obligated to conceal a crime by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Nor to hide abuses of power and privilege, nor to protect traitors who have betrayed the trust which the public has placed in them that they will execute their offices faithfully and defend and preserve the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  23. Hypocrisy by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Extreme hypocrisy exhibited by:

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"

    He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Hypocrisy by Myu · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's how the law works; you need to respond to violations of the law in ways that are themselves covered by the law. You can't say "oh, it's the police, they got the bad guy, so no foul". In order for law to be consistent and generally trustworthy, there needs to be due process written to cover responses to legal violation.

      --
      Myu: ... The map's upside down...
    2. Re:Hypocrisy by kraut · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Surely exposing criminal activity by the government is more legal than covering it up.

      And doesn't the constitution trump whatever snoopers' charter they were operating under?

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    3. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government's activities weren't illegal. They were authorized into law by congress. You might contend that the new laws are *unconstitutional*, but that's a contention you have to make before the Supreme Court if you want to legally revert an unconstitutional law passed by Congress that they don't want to repeal on their own. There's a process here, and what the leaker did *is* illegal, while what the government did *is not illegal*.

    4. Re:Hypocrisy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.

      What activity by the government, in this case, has been shown to be illegal?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Hypocrisy by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Did you just come out from a cave?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:Hypocrisy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And doesn't the constitution trump whatever snoopers' charter they were operating under?

      The Constitution trumps all Federal law and all State law as related to the specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution.

      The folly is going to the corrupt government to seek a change in the corrupt government (notably the Supreme Court which uses prior infringements to justify further ones). Back when States had some control of the Federal government (pre 17th Amendment) there was at least a negative feedback cycle (the States are the parties to the Constitution, despite the preamble) but now it's just a positive feedback cycle cranked up to 11. Results are predictable.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Hypocrisy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What activity by the government, in this case, has been shown to be illegal?

      Self-issue of general warrants. You have studied the infringements on rights under the King's governors, yeah?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Hypocrisy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      but that's a contention you have to make before the Supreme Court if you want to legally revert an unconstitutional law passed by Congress that they don't want to repeal on their own.

      That's a misunderstanding of the system. Illegal laws are not legal until their status is changed by judicial review. If SCOUTS declares a law to be unconstitutional, it was always unconstitutional, and its effects are rewound to the extent possible.

      Laws can only be assumed to be legal if they are in accordance with the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and that was written in plain language for every man to understand. That's not to say that the government, SCOUTS included, hasn't perverted the law to its extreme, but that's how the system was designed. And that's how it will be as long as people let them get away with it. And they probably will as long as they're uneducated (by whom?) and food is available at the grocery store.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Hypocrisy by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You have studied the infringements on rights under the King's governors, yeah?

      The defenses one hears of this program do make me wonder how many people were paying attention when they taught American History in school. The "subversive notions" around here are mostly answers to a history exam in an American school.

    10. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extreme hypocrisy exhibited by:

      "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"

      He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.

      In further hypocrisy, I don't recall a strong Republican reaction to find out who leaked classified information regarding an undercover U.S. agent (Valerie Plame Wilson) during the run up to Gulf War II. In fact they seemed to want to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

    11. Re:Hypocrisy by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The government's activities weren't illegal. They were authorized into law by congress. You might contend that the new laws are *unconstitutional*, but that's a contention you have to make before the Supreme Court if you want to legally revert an unconstitutional law passed by Congress that they don't want to repeal on their own. There's a process here, and what the leaker did *is* illegal, while what the government did *is not illegal*.

      When you have secret programs with secret rules and secret courts making secret decisions about them, NOTHING is legal.
      Hammurabi wrote shit down for people to see for a fucking reason.

    12. Re:Hypocrisy by sexconker · · Score: 1

      He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.

      What activity by the government, in this case, has been shown to be illegal?

      Uh, the massive spying program that spies on American citizens without warrant or just cause?

      Or how about the fact that the program is so vast and pervasive, with laws passed specifically to enable it (laws that are laughably unconstitutional) that the program is a direct assault on the US Constitution, making all involved guilty of treason?

    13. Re:Hypocrisy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Uh, the massive spying program that spies on American citizens without warrant or just cause?

      Has that been shown to be illegal yet?

      (laws that are laughably unconstitutional)

      But were, nonetheless, passed - that in itself suggests there is at least some weasel-room as to the legality of all this should it be formally challenged. I hope it is, and I hope the weasels lose, but wishing isn't knowing.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    14. Re:Hypocrisy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Or, alternatively, you could answer my question and both demolish any inferred sarcasm in my question and educate the reading public.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    15. Re:Hypocrisy by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have been shown to be illegal. Read the Bill of Rights.
      Regular laws passed by Congress do not supersede the Constitution or its amendments.

    16. Re:Hypocrisy by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      THAT is the problem... They don't TEACH American History in today's public schools err indoctrination camps.. Those of us who went thru highschool/college in the 60s-70s actually DID learn about the Constitution and what it was written to protect.. Protip: The rights given in the Bill Of Rights are GOD-given rights NOT government-given rights.. The Constitution is written to provide limits on the government NOT the people... Plus, this guy is/was a government contractor, he didn't take the standard oath given to government employees, all the way from the lowest GS-puke up to POTUS AND Congress. The oaths are slightly different for each job title, but ALL state in the very beginning of the oath, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Even though this guy did not take that oath, he obeys it FAR FAR better than any of the actual government employees in this administration. He put his safety/comfort in jeopardy to UPHOLD the Constitution.. As far as I'm concerned, he is a national hero.... May God Bless his future life...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    17. Re:Hypocrisy by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Those of us who went thru highschool/college in the 60s-70s actually DID learn about the Constitution and what it was written to protect.

      I went to high school and college in the 1970's. Question: how do you know it hasn't been taught as well in the decades since? No snark - an honest question.

    18. Re:Hypocrisy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
      And do you really think it's going to be anywhere near that simple if this actually gets anywhere near a court? I read this the other day:

      The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches.

      However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds.

      That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials.

      Seems like there's still plenty of room for argument to be had over legality yet.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    19. Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where was the due process written to cover the power to spy on the citizens?

  24. Don't talk about fight club.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for the DoD for 8 years of my life in my twenties.. You don't talk about fight club, regardless.. This is definitely a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right"

    1. Re:Don't talk about fight club.. by kraut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if you were witnessing illegal behaviour in the DoD, you're saying you shouldn't report it or whistleblow?

      Dude. That is just so wrong.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    2. Re:Don't talk about fight club.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth is, Snowden is just a low level nobody who, quite honestly, hasn't been entrusted by voters to make decisions such as these. The people the voters DID entrust to make decisions such as these had decided that nobodies like Snowden shouldn't be talking about this stuff... so they marked it Secret, and Snowden agreed as a part of his employment to abide by these decisions made by people elected by the voters or their delegates. This is how a representative democracy works.

    3. Re:Don't talk about fight club.. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The funniest thing is that you actually believe what you are saying... What a government stooge. You think the "elected representatives" are listening to their constituents anymore? That's rich.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Don't talk about fight club.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.
      P. 405, Catch-22

    5. Re:Don't talk about fight club.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you all forget about Dyncorp and the US military involvement in the sex trade already?

  25. Anyone questioning this whole story? by openfrog · · Score: 1

    I am interested in issues of privacy, and considering that Google has left China over such an issue, the original story sounded quite implausible to me.

    I have read the original document that was supposedly leaked about PRISM. I still have to be convinced of its authenticity.

    Even more so after reading a quite sensible account of this whole story, gathered by eight contributors to the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    If people are led to believe that everything we do online is available to the NSA in the manner described in the supposedly leaked document, it will be much more difficult to lead campaigns about real threats, like SOPA, etc.

    1. Re:Anyone questioning this whole story? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I have read the original document that was supposedly leaked about PRISM. I still have to be convinced of its authenticity.

      I understand your skepticism, but if it's not authentic, then what's he guilty of leaking?

    2. Re:Anyone questioning this whole story? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      considering that Google has left China over such an issue

      Google can afford to leave China, they can't afford to leave the US. Moreover, no reasonable person here (there are some) is saying that the US is as bad as China. That doesn't mean the US isn't doing things which violate any reasonable understanding of 4th Amendment. Court interpretations may be another matter, but how can you bring suit about a secret program anyway? The Supreme Court has even recently affirmed that you can't bring suit about a spying program which may have affected you, and you can't know if it's affected you if it's secret. Welcome to Catch-22.

      after reading a quite sensible account of this whole story

      That story doesn't exactly exonerate the NSA or the companies involved.

      Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant ... While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so.

      Doesn't speak well for companies other than Twitter, does it?

      People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence.

      Not what I'd call great transparency.

      Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance

      Convenient.

      The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. ... FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms ...

      Doesn't sound to me like the 4th's "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

  26. 2 wrongs don't make a right.. by houbou · · Score: 1

    So, in one hand you have the Illegal redistribution of top secret files and in the other hand, the whistle blowing nature of these files prove these are illegal activities unto themselves.
    Now the US government wants their pound of flesh. Go figure.
    This is really serious and I believe that POTUS is gonna have to intervene, if only to either save face and disavow and/or acknowledge the wrongness of the situation.
    In a way, Snowden is being the ultimate patriot here, and you can't blame him for releasing this info.

    1. Re:2 wrongs don't make a right.. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      illegal activities

      Not yet proven. That's not to say I don't think he was right to reveal, or that he should be prosecuted if the govt does manage to legally weasle their way out, but I've yet to see anything definitively categorised as illegal about what PRISM has been doing.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:2 wrongs don't make a right.. by stewsters · · Score: 1

      There was nothing illegal about what the Nazis were doing in WW2. Yet we still hanged many in Nuremburg who said they were merely following orders and would be shot it they disobeyed.

      We said that they should not have followed immoral order, even if it was legal. Have we changed our minds on this, now that it is us keeping the lists?

  27. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely YES.

    I fixed your typo.

    I do not think you realize just how serious of a matter this is. This is exactly the sort of thing the US government criticizes other nations for. The People, as in the Citizens of The United States of America should not put up with this. If we take the future of our nation seriously we need to start no confidence recall elections where state constitutions allow it, demand the immediate impeachment and conviction or resignation of Barack Obama, and vote out the rest of the trash where state constitutions do not provide for recall elections.

    This is a very serious issue and I for one am grateful that we have brave people like Snowden in the NSA who are unwilling to violate the Constitution and are willing to put their own lives at stake to report it to the people via the most public means possible.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  28. More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE. by Viewsonic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one with their jaw on the ground that the NSA and CIA are hiring contractors as full time employees in top secret positions with access to everything, instead of doing actual short term janitorial type of work that contractors are supposed to be used for? If they need a printer installs, sure, use the contractor. Need to have a recorded wire tap scanned and sent over to secret building #2, use a contractor? REALLY??

  29. Strange days indeed by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I never thought I'd see the day when an American is seeking political protection in China.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    1. Re:Strange days indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want "strange", take a look at Chinese work conditions and the valuation of human life in connection with production resources. Then read "Das Kapital" from Karl Marx and put the readings into perspective.

      You'll be hard put to find a more recklessly capitalistic and less communistic state than mainland China. The world is not what it calls itself. Why should that be different for the "Land of the Brave and the Free"?

    2. Re:Strange days indeed by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      It's because of this, because of the timing, and because of the latest news reports that some of the information 'leaked' was faulty, that I suspect Snowden may be a Chinese asset. He may not realize it -- his Chinese handlers may be manipulating him in any number of ways -- but it really looks like he's a stooge who has been directed to do the maximum damage possible.

      Whether the NSA deserves the damage done to them or not is a separate issue.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  30. Booz Allen should suffer by Andover+Chick · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has suffered management consultancy hogwash about "best practices" or "core values" should experience schadenfreude in Booz Allen agonize over providing a defective worker to the NSA at 200K+ a year. I say give Snowden a free pass on this one and instead imprison senior Booz Allen employees at Gitmo!

  31. Re:Yah Snowden's a bona-fide bad guy by harlequinn · · Score: 1

    "That's because he's a clueless IT support geek, and not a real engineer."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

  32. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Arker · · Score: 2

    Official channels are worse than useless when the corruption is top-down.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  33. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I appreciate the sentiment for trying to do things the right way, in this context your comments come off as the worst kind of boot licking. Given that Snowden felt that at LEAST the CIA, NSA, and FISA were in on it and that the President knew and did not do anything, who exactly was going to 'resolve' this? How long is it safe to wait do you think before declaring it unresolved? Six years? I'd also like to suggest that your faith in process and procedures assumes that a system can be set up incorrectly in one area but can get processes and procedures correct.

    What happens when protecting classified information and abiding by the law are exclusive? The law is not as clear as we'd all like to think and they may be incompatible.

  34. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that.

    Of course, the much more interesting question would be: Is it effective?

  35. Criminals should not be protected by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...they broke the Law, they shouldn't get to use it anymore. I stand with Snowden, if what he has exposed shows criminality, then he did not break the Law. Simple as.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  36. Obscurity by guttentag · · Score: 2
    As soon as the media announced the guy's name yesterday I went looking to find out who he is/how legitimate he sounds. People typically leave a lot of info out in the open about themselves before they suddenly became famous. Then again, an NSA employee would have covered his online presence pretty well. One of my first very simple hits was this:

    Edward H Snowden
    (Age 65+) Retired Porn Star @
    State of California Dept. of Adult
    Films & Education

    I figured the guy is probably legitimate then. That info is enough to make anyone want to stop looking, and makes him sound pretty "spooky." Of course, the NSA knows where to find him anyway, so he's probably SOL.

  37. "not nice to fool with US spy agencies" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    They will be ruthless. May not James Bond type assassinations anymore, but years in jails and courts as Manning, Assange and dozens of Anonymous have learned.

  38. Re:Yah Snowden's a bona-fide bad guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a special type of authoritarian. Exactly the type people need to fight against.

  39. The other side of "Just following orders." by erroneus · · Score: 1

    This is the other side of the "just following orders" coin. When people don't just follow orders, and instead choose to do what they feel is right, we have the weight of huge global government coming down on individuals.

  40. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner,

    The above is a key comment. Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.

    There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.

    Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.

    hmm

    so what you're saying is that he should have blown the whistle to the guy paying the bills for doing what was worth blowing the whistle on? how does that logic work for you? just saying that every government breaks their own stated laws is nothing to defend the action with.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  41. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by erroneus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Contractor use is how they get around other aspects of US and [especially] Constitutional legal restrictions and limitations.

    Problem with the military code, rules or laws? No problem -- hire contractors. Got a problem with accountability and being tracked or with requirements of reporting your activities? Just use contractors. Easy to blame and easy to fire.

    Not shocking, but quite disgusting. We put these government controls into place to prevent all sorts of government abuse and they just route around it. And no one is called to the floor for these practices.

  42. It should not be illegal by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    It should not be illegal to expose when government acts illegally.

    1. Re:It should not be illegal by PPH · · Score: 1

      In fact, when one enlists in the military (more applicable to Manning than Snowden) one swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That comes before all the stuff about obeying superior officers and the UCMJ.

      Sure, there are mechanisms in place for employees and contractors to report wrongdoings up the chain of command. But other government branches have been revealed to be overturning the results of internal investigations/prosecutions based on superiors' privileges (I'm referring to instances of sexual assaults in the military). Its highly probable that the same system of privilege exists within intelligence services, making internal reporting systems worthless.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:It should not be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very True. Even after I left the Army, that Oath still affects the way I view the world and our system of law. Of course I was all too happy to forget the "orders of the officers appointed over me" part, but the primary mission to defend the constitution, well, that's the essence of what it means to be a good citizen.
       
      If your conscience convicts you, you have a duty to testify in defense of the Constitution. I imagine a lot of current, ex, and retired Army feel the same way. Give this guy a break--we need to drag these things out into the light for a good looking over. We might find that we all care a great deal more about freedom than we often accuse each other of doing.

  43. Whistelblow by sargon666777 · · Score: 1

    The goverment tells you they want you to blow the whistle.. They have put laws to protect that very thing.. unless you blow the whistle on them..

    --
    Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
  44. Do your part. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contact your representative!

    My representative is Scott Rigell and here's his email blast from yesterday:

    Dear Friend,

    Failed leadership at the IRS, unanswered questions about the Benghazi tragedy, and the seizing of AP reporters' phone records have engulfed Washington in controversy. Last week we learned of a broad government surveillance program that, though reportedly legal, raises serious questions about the balance between security and civil liberties.Each matter is serious and merits a thorough investigation by Congress. Oversight is a principal role of Congress, and I am confident that the House of Representatives will do its part to identify the facts. Once those facts are known, I expect and will work to ensure that those who violated the trust of the American people are held accountable.

    Though Washington often seems to be bound in partisan gridlock, there are rays of reason that occasionally shine through. For example, I’ve been encouraged to hear my Democratic colleagues speak with firmness and conviction about the need to hold the IRS accountable for targeting conservative groups. And I appreciate how members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are extracting from the Administration the truth of what led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Their work reflects good governance.

    Unfortunately the damage done by each controversy extends well beyond the issues themselves. Collectively, they have taken the focus away from America's number one challenge – and my number one priority – more jobs.

    American families in our district and across the country are hurting because our economy continues to struggle. In serving you, I remain focused on advancing practical solutions that help grow our economy and encourage entrepreneurs to put capital at risk. That's why I was so encouraged this week to receive a flood of support for the Virginia Jobs and Energy Act that I introduced in April. Here are just a few excerpts from letters that came in:

    From the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission: “Hampton Roads’ economy is based on a strong military presence, a competitive port and world class tourist attractions. (Your) leadership to support responsible development of Virginia’s offshore energy resources is key to our area.”

    From the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce: “We strongly support your bipartisan approach to lift the moratorium on energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf in a responsible and environmentally safe manner. The Hampton Roads Chamber looks forward to working with you and our united bipartisan delegation to pass H.R. 1782 in 2013.”

    Momentum is clearly building in our region to advance energy independence, and more jobs, through the responsible development of offshore energy. I look forward to keeping you informed of our progress.

    Mindful that I work for you, I remain,

    Yours in Freedom,

    Scott Rigell

    And here is my reply:

    Mr. Rigell,

    I am a registered voter in your district.

    Jobs mean little if they are not got in a free society. I would like to hear more about your stance on the recent NSA spying revelations - specifically the undue surveillance of, and collection of communications data belonging to innocent United States citizens. Do you support the FISA courts and their current relationship with the NSA in allowing an end-run around specific Fourth Amendment protections meant to protect innocent persons from unwarranted government intrusion?

  45. Can of worms opened... by bayankaran · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...the fun begins.
    On one side Snowden, who knows the repercussions of what he did, but chose this path. Bravo. He did not go the Wikileaks route, very impressive.
    On the other side whoever who were "appalled" US government is snooping indiscriminately - the list starts with Ron Paul. Lets see if Ron Paul will take a stand and publicly defend Snowden.
    Then we have POTUS - who probably would have personally supported Snowden if he were not the POTUS. The more POTUS and his administration squeaks about "grave danger to US" and other nonsense and proceeds to harm Snowden, the more out of touch, elitist and a tool he will look.
    Excellent drama. I sincerely hope Snowden can go home to a heroes reception.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
    1. Re:Can of worms opened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 days ago I asked a Ron Paul, via the webform on his website, whether he had been aware of prism, and if so, to what level of detail. I have not received a response. Interesting and disappointing.

    2. Re:Can of worms opened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul is a useless fag, and you'd do well to stop supporting him. He is just there to control people like you that are too smart to succumb to political polarization. He still works for the people you don't want running government.

      This became obvious to me during his last campaign (after I donated twice) in the spam that I kept getting via email and post. Finally, I got one using the polarizing term "obamacare" and I had had enough. He's no different than the rest.

      I still can't get those fuckers to stop mailing me shit.

    3. Re:Can of worms opened... by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      you should have said you wanted to sell him his domain name

    4. Re:Can of worms opened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to fix the system by working within the system? Must the idealist fix the system outside of the system?
      Does Ron Paul have to work as an independent politician in order to fix the different problems that are happening in the government?
      Does Ron Paul have to work as an independent citizen outside of elected politics in order to fix the different problems that are happening in the government?

    5. Re:Can of worms opened... by hotdiggity · · Score: 1
      I'd say it's a no-brainer that Ron Paul supports him:

      http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-06-10/ron-paul-edward-snowden-and-glenn-greenwald-have-done-a-great-service-to-the-american-people/

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

  46. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    "Hey, is this the Whistle Blowing Dept? I work on classified info for the CIA and found out the US Govt is spying on every American citizen. I want to report it."

    "Oh, hey there... No, no no this is the Resolve Embarassing Situations Quickly Dept. We made an extra secure compound for you guys down in Cuba. I'll call them up and get you a free flight. Don't worry about the black fabric bag they put on your head; It's to keep the place extra super secret!"

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  47. This Ought To Be Good by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    If Snowden is ever brought to trial, and not droned or Gitmo'd, his only defense will be to prove he was exposing/preventing a greater crime.

    The discovery motions alone will be surreal, and what about jury selection? Appellate trial transcripts? Sworn testimony from agency honchos?

    I sure hope Groklaw is cranking up for this one. This might be the trial of the century, if it happens.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  48. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Holi · · Score: 1

    Actually there is no criminal law regarding the release of classified information. It is actually only a crime if it harms National Defense.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  49. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information.

    Have you been paying attention to the U.S. government at all in the last 30 years? Pull your head out of your ass you fat idiot.

  50. Clapper has zero credibility by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    "The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a congressional hearing in Feb 2011.

  51. Washington Post: "self made computer wizard" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    $200K job without only a GED (high school equivalency). Home in Hawaii. I am impressed. story

    1. Re:Washington Post: "self made computer wizard" by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Home in Hawaii.

      He knew better than to buy the home, too. He was renting it and moved out a month ago. If he had bought it, the Feds would have seized it. The NSA opened a new operations center in Hawaii last year (it even has an optical data pipe disguised as a rainbow) and is probably looking for local land to store all the bits they've collected so far.

  52. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great, another authoritarian outs themselves...
    FOAD

  53. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are troll or a fool or both.

  54. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speaking as someone who has seen systemic corruption first hand, reporting it via official channels is useless 90% of the time and will just get you outed as a troublemaker. For me it was absolute proof that someone was fired in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, and the company actively took measures to hide that fact. For the specific case, a woman was found to have breast cancer and the company took very specific steps to ensure that she would be fired and they wouldn't have to deal with it or pay for it. I suspected that there was some pressure from their insurance company as well, since they'd be allowed to drop her after she got fired. They set her file up in a clever way, without needing her to sign anything, to show that she had 'ongoing problems relating to work performance and absenteeism.' She was one of the hardest workers there and never missed a day. Her time clock in the past was redone to make it look like she was absent once or twice a month. She received a warning at one time about not showing up for work and not calling in, but this was due to being evacuated over a chemical spill in her area, and not having access to a phone...they appended it to say that the reason was bunk, but this appending was removed.

    So a week after she went on leave under the FMLA, she was officially terminated for not showing up for work for a week without calling in. They simply threw away her paperwork and were done with it. I took the findings and reported them via official channels. Nothing happened. I took the findings and reported them to an agency that was supposed to investigate these things. Nothing happened. Finally I took the findings and reported them to the person that they happened to. What happened next was a settlement of undisclosed value from the company to her. The undisclosed value was enough to hit a company of that size pretty hard.

    Were there any changes in the company? No. Not a single one. If a woman that worked there got breast cancer next week, you can bet your ass they'd still end up fired for a no call no show. Would I ever have worked in that industry again had they figured out who I was? No. Would I ever have a job again if they figured out who I was? No. Would I likely go to jail for 'hacking' when seeing those things was part of my everyday job? Yep.

    This is the country...no...the world that we live in. Get used to it folks. People primarily want three things: Food, shelter, and socialization. Guess what can ensure all three? Money and power. That's what people seek. No one is going to know about the evil things you did to get them when you're retired somewhere nice and warm and have a million dollars in the bank. Even if half the civilized world cares, there's still plenty of fish in that other half.

    Want my advice? Well, I don't really care if you want it or not, here it comes. You can just as easily have food, shelter, and socialization, by living a decent life as a decent human being. The difference is that if you're filthy rich, you can have it all on your own terms. You can decide exactly what food to eat, exactly what shelter to hide under, and exactly who you mingle with. It isn't nearly as grand a choice as it seems at first glance.

    Here in America, being a lower-middle class citizen, I think I'm pretty damn rich. I've got two cars in good condition, a house, a bank account, and food on the table. I can go to Walmart right now and pick from a whole bunch of different foods to eat, clothes to wear, books to read, and leisurely activities to pursue. This is the grandest life that the average person has known at any time throughout all of history. You think we have it bad? Imagine being in the middle ages. Your pantry is nearly dry. You'll be lucky to have stale bread to eat this week, you'll be even luckier if you get to eat meat this year. Imagine 100 years ago. You've never had a cold drink in the summer before. Electric power is something for big cities and rich people. Half your friends just died from the Spanish Flu, and all that can be done is for a nurse to check on you and ask you if you're still alive.

  55. let's hear an argument about why revealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, here is why it is harmful - rather than everyone guessing if they are being monitored for eternity and stored in some massive datacenters that everyone in the government can access at will, we know it is true. It makes the government look bad. Suddenly China looks like a more democratic country to live in. Just like the state department cables which insulted and embarrassed everybody, and made the USA look bad. Thos in power will throw their tantrum - this guy will go 'on the drone kill list', which also is a secret, and next month the media will reveal the next scandal to rock our little frail collapsing democracy. In fact it looks like we are ahead of schedule. Every week we need something new.
    "State Dept. memo reveals possibly extensive cover-ups Document indicates allegations of widespread wrongdoing, including sexual misconduct, may have been brushed aside" - CBSNews

  56. Moral Responsibility by waspleg · · Score: 1

    “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

      Martin Luther King Jr.

    Snowden is a hero. Someone already posted the Whitehouse petition. You should sign it. Try to save a real patriot.

    1. Re:Moral Responsibility by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is another point of difference between the population of the US and the government of US. Think on it as a foreing government took over while the population remained, they won't care about what you think, unless they feel threatened and go against you.

    2. Re:Moral Responsibility by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That's not even Martin Luther King's idea originally: A weirdo named Henry David Thoreau wrote a famous essay on the concept of disobeying unjust laws, right before refusing to pay his taxes (due to his opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American War) and getting thrown in jail for it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  57. Serious Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People making threats and noise in a webpage of news.

    I will not be able to sleep today with only 10 guards around me

    Regards, Obama

  58. Don't buy into authoritarian framing by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Security supposedly means protecting our freedom. If so, they are one and the same, and there can't even theoretically be a tradeoff.

    Not to mention that the entire point of the leak was that the government is deliberately spying on non-terrorists.

    1. Re:Don't buy into authoritarian framing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Security supposedly means protecting our freedom.

      And they overlap completely. Remember how free use suffered before the advent of secure DRM?

    2. Re:Don't buy into authoritarian framing by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Uh, what?

      Security is a grade of order. Freedom is a grade of chaos. They exist on opposite ends of the spectrum.

      Don't mistake bill of rights issues like speech (secure in our opinions) and privacy (secure in our papers and possessions) with security just because of the word "secure". Those have nothing to do with security and everything to do with freedom.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:Don't buy into authoritarian framing by celle · · Score: 1

      "Security supposedly means protecting our freedom"

          Key word "supposedly". In this case "supposedly" didn't happen.

      "they are one and the same"

          No they aren't, security and freedom are near polar opposites. As with security you cannot have freedom and with freedom you can't have security. Real free states are somewhere in between with security and freedom being relative.
          Essentially dictatorships are free states for the dictators just like democracies are free states for the mob.

    4. Re:Don't buy into authoritarian framing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security supposedly means protecting our freedom. If so, they are one and the same, and there can't even theoretically be a tradeoff.

      Not to mention that the entire point of the leak was that the government is deliberately spying on non-terrorists.

      People objecting to act under government superveillance are supporting terrorism. There's plenty of those around, and it is important to keep taps on them.

  59. Did he leak the USA Today Story of 2006? - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

    "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY."

    What is different about what this guy "leaked" ?

    1. Re:Did he leak the USA Today Story of 2006? - by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Material undeniable proof.

      --
      none
  60. Is perjury a crime? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Snowden claims that one of the specific reasons why he chose to act is because the NSA was deliberately lying to congress. If that isn't a crime, it should be. IMO it should be considered treason, but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury.

    Of course, the government will punish the real guilty parties here to the same extent that they punished the criminal activities Manning revealed...

    1. Re:Is perjury a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the NSA was deliberately lying to Congress (a statement I am not refuting), why didn't he take his evidence to Congress instead of to a British news agency?

    2. Re:Is perjury a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden claims that one of the specific reasons why he chose to act is because the NSA was deliberately lying to congress. If that isn't a crime, it should be. IMO it should be considered treason, but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury.

      Congress is not a court of law. You can testify in congress but the same rules do not apply.

    3. Re:Is perjury a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, Congress is not a court of law and the same rules don't apply. However, lying to Congress is a crime. It is called Contempt of Congress.

    4. Re:Is perjury a crime? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      the NSA was deliberately lying to congress...IMO it should be considered treason

      There are very specific conditions on what can be considered treason in the US constitution. It was specifically written to avoid things like that from being treason.

      but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury

      I would agree that it should be perjury, yes.

    5. Re:Is perjury a crime? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Snowden claims that one of the specific reasons why he chose to act is because the NSA was deliberately lying to congress. If that isn't a crime, it should be.

      Isn't that why Clinton was impeached?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    6. Re:Is perjury a crime? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      well, there's no shortage of that...

    7. Re:Is perjury a crime? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I believe it is, specifically perjury, as that is what Slick Willy was charged with and impeached on. I only wish the biggest issue in our government now was if the president lied to congress about an intern smoking his pole.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Is perjury a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that why Clinton was impeached?

      No.

    9. Re:Is perjury a crime? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You're right, Congress is not a court of law and the same rules don't apply. However, lying to Congress is a crime. It is called Contempt of Congress.

      It's only a crime if you do it under oath. It's at the discretion of congress whether someone testifying before them has to take an oath. Too often they're "we don't want to make it seem as if we're untrusting" so they don't require the oath. Unless of course someone is testifying about a matter of great importance to the country, like the use of steroids in baseball. People got slapped with contempt for lying about that.

    10. Re:Is perjury a crime? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Congress can also get really, really mad at you if you lie to them. Even if they can't jail you, you will likely find your budget placed in permanent limbo, and all Presidential appointments held up until the President fires your ass. That's assuming the President even waits around long enough for them to threaten any of that.

    11. Re:Is perjury a crime? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      I would argue (quite unsuccessfully, I'm sure) that any wing of the military or intelligence community that takes takespayer dollars while actively lying about the activities it engages in to the powers that are supposed to oversee it is effectively attempting to subvert the democratically elected government through (and this is where their role as members of the military community comes into play) force and coercion. Which is treason. I agree with the spirit of your post in that we don't want the charge to be thrown around too lightly, but I think it fits cases like these a lot better than it fits someone who, say, did a radio show for the Nazis or al Qaeda. But, then, I view the idea of 'government' in a democracy as being considerably more than just the authoritarian whims of whoever is currently in office.

  61. Only treason in some cases by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The Constitution, for excellent reasons, limits treason charges to making war against the US or joining its enemies.

  62. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Fosterocalypse · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't be. It's easier to fire a contractor if they screw up. You basically cannot fire a civil service (i.e. government employee non active duty) employee after their three year "probation" period is over when first hired. No matter how incompetent or how bad they screw up they will always have a job and even make one if they have to. (I wish I were making that up I truely do). Its also cheaper to find a contractor that already has a clearance and/or experience than to pay for a clearance wait for it to go through and then show them what to do. The government has this mentality that a person when hired for a specific job should be able to do every aspect of that job 100% from day one as if they've been doing it all their life. So its easier for them to contract it out instead of hiring and training someone. IT Contractors get hired for projects so they are full time employees but for a pre-defined time period depending on the contract.

  63. There will be more whistleblowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A secret service is only as strong as its members feel loyal to their government. But the US government has shown many times that they are not necessarily the good guys - look at the way the Occupy movement was crushed, and how the fat bankers were saved, time and again. Yes, some in the secret service just might have an opinion about economic inequality in the US, just to mention one topic of interest.

  64. Re:Yah Snowden's a bona-fide bad guy by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    So, you're saying that the NSA didn't use the secret FISA courts to get questionably legal status to track every cellphone on every US carrier?

    In spite of the multiple government security officials saying it's OK that they were doing that.

    You're funny.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  65. Founding Fathers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't these guys traitors, too?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

  66. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by guibaby · · Score: 4, Informative

    No...I am not shocked. I worked for a defense contractor as contractor from another company. I had clearance. Its pretty common. There are several levels of clearance. Everyone knows about secret and top secret, but there are other levels that don't even have names. In addition to that, you have compartmentalization through program clearance. Which basically means, even if you have super duper top secret clearance, you still don't get to see anything until you are briefed on the specific rules of the specific program. The government hire contractors like BH for their ability to specialize.

    --
    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
  67. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Processes and procedures: that's what we need, not people willing to point out we are marching people into gas chambers, no, we need more processes and procedures!

  68. NSA looks at anonymous phone bills ? by perpenso · · Score: 0

    Serious crimes have been committed.

    Really? Aren't the only things collected by the NSA:
    (1) The caller's (source) phone number.
    (2) The called (destination) phone number.
    (3) Duration of the call.

    The call itself was not listened to or recorded.

    *** If so ***, the NSA basically has phone bills without the names. I don't think this reaches the human rights violation level, citing Nuremberg may be a little overdone.

    1. Re:NSA looks at anonymous phone bills ? by chill · · Score: 1

      What is collected from a telco is "Call Data Records", which is everything except the voice recording of the phone call.

      This includes:

      Number(s) Called / Number(s) Calling
      Time of Call
      Duration
      Button presses during the call (call transfers, etc.)

      If it is a cellular call:

      SMS text messages
      Cell tower connected to
      Coarse location of phone (Tower triangulation)
      Granular location of phone (GPS coordinates)
      Registration / Keep Alives

      Allowing you to:

      Subject Adam received a 2 minute call from Subject Eve at 8:30 p.m.
      At 8:45 p.m. both Subject Adam's and Subject Eve's phones registered their location at the "No Tell Motel" down on State Street.
      At 9:25 p.m. both Subject's departed the Motel

      Now change that from Subjects Adam and Eve to Adam and Steve. Care to "out" someone?

      How about if one (or more) of the parties are married -- and not to each other? No leverage for blackmail THERE.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:NSA looks at anonymous phone bills ? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      yes, of course they aren't listening to the call.

      (cough! Qwest! cough! Qwest!)

  69. Alternative theory by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    A low-level contractor is brought in for a compartmentalized, one-off job. he's given a clearance higher than is really called for. He talks to some bottom-rung agents who bullshit him to lord their status over a mere civilian. He get his hands on a single crappy deck of slides that are so vague they could mean anything. He puts these together and imagines he's stumbled onto the mother of all conspiracies.

  70. Just to put this in a historical perspective... by dtjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snowden publicized Top Secret information on U. S. Government surveillance of all Americans in their use of email, cell phones, and internet searches. The NSA is allegedly performing this surveillance under the auspices of the Bush-era 'Patriot Act' which was enacted as a means to locate and monitor terrorists. Prior to the PA, the government had to go to court and obtain wiretap authorization for specific individuals for a specific purpose and for a limited amount of time. Before the PA, the U.S government certainly could have prevented a lot of domestic criminal and terrorist activity if it had been allowed to continuously monitor all landline communications. That type of monitoring and surveillance was infamous and routine in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, East Germany, and many other totalitarian governments but we Americans were sheltered by our constitution. Of course, the first landline networks didn't appear until the dawn of the 20th century. The 19th century had widespread telegraph networks that the government could have routinely monitored which would have certainly prevented criminal and terrorist activity. The point here is that it is not the technology that has changed, nor the constitution, but our willingness within ourselves to accept 24/7 surveillance by our government to make us safer. We are willingly giving up our constitutional right to privacy to be safe. Of course, there has never been an actual vote on this but our public acceptance of the unfortunate fate that will befall the courageous Mr. Snowden is reflective of what the outcome of such a vote might be.

    1. Re:Just to put this in a historical perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama won in large part because people were unhappy with Bush's forwarding of this particular agenda.

      The American People have not been presented with another candidate since whom could believably win and who would change things (or even promise to).

    2. Re:Just to put this in a historical perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really new here...

      There have been numerous references to secret government data closets in various data centers.. al here on Slashdot...

      do some research here

    3. Re:Just to put this in a historical perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this "we", kemosabe? I didn't give up shit.

      But that's the magic of Democracy isn't it? I have 1/300,000,000th of a say, and everyone else can be convinced I'm a secret terrorist.

  71. Traitors and Spies! by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Saw a comment on Boing Boing, that I liked:

    There have been no whistle blowers since 2000, only traitors and spies...

  72. dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were paying attention 12 years ago, you would have seen that the US caused 9/11 and not some guy living in a cave. Save your stupid ass appeal to emotion retort, I look at facts. I'm sure you believe that looking at facts dishonors the deceased too, which is another appeal to emotion handed down by propaganda and crooks in office.

  73. Re:It is time for the workers to rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to miss the irony of the fact that this style of domestic surveillance is what socialist countries like the USSR and China were/are known for doing.

  74. Sign anyway, otherwise you're only talk! by jopsen · · Score: 1

    This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.

    I doubt civil war will solve anything... and talk like that only makes it easier for the government to say: look it's only criminals and lunatics who has something to hide.

    Please do sign the petition. It's not enough but it's better than talk.
    I'm not a US citizen, so I don't have a say: it's your mess, your government and your responsibility!

    Oh, well... I suppose I'll never be voting for any politicians who are found of the US.

  75. Not good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,

    And it is the obligation of every US citizen to defend the Constitution from being destroyed. The United States had checks and balances throughout the government to prevent this kind of thing. Sadly the Patriot Act has removed all the checks and balances. The US government has placed too much power in too few hands. At this point they might as well put "Bill of Rights" toilet paper in the whitehouse bathrooms.

    And I say this coming from a country that has a significant security threat against it -- Israel. It's a tricky balance to ensure that the rights of every citizen are maintained while ensuring the safety of said citizens. The US government has overstepped its bounds. While outing this program is likely to help terrorists in the short term (now they know not to use Verizon, etc) but in the long term the foundations of the country seemingly have been sacrificed.

  76. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is probably needed to meet the letter of the law - if it is a private contractor doing warrantless wiretapping, then it is not the government, eh?

  77. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1
  78. You mean like Thomas Drake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up the case of Thomas Drake. My understanding is that he blew the whistle on spying on citizens and followed protocol. He told members of Congress that had the proper clearance. They still dragged him through the courts and tried to make an example out of him by lying and accusing him of leaking classified information much less discriminantly. He didn't take a plea and stuck to his guns and won.. despite risking some pretty scary potential outcomes.
      He was a much more senior figure with better connections.. I don't think Snowdon would have half a chance Drake did.

  79. First they came by stewsters · · Score: 4, Informative

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the human rights activists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a human rights activist.

    Then they came for the terrorists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorists.

    Then they came for the people with Verizon,
    and I didn't speak out because I don't like getting charged that much for a phone plan.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

    1. Re:First they came by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I've been mulling this one over. How about:

      First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a sand monkey.

      Then they audited the Tea Partiers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a right wing nutjob.

      Then they enclosed the Occupiers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dirty hippy.

      Then they spied on every Verizon customer, and I didn't speak out because my meta-data is with AT&T.

      Then they extradited the whistleblowers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a traitor.

      Then they came for the pussies, and we felt very safe.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:First they came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My best course of action right now may be to hope I end up on the jury. From the sounds of it I'd likely be acquitting (don't know for sure, but unless he did something else pretty nasty).

    3. Re:First they came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they came for the people with Verizon,
      and I didn't speak out because I don't like getting charged that much for a phone plan.

      Then they came for me,
      and there was no one left to speak for me.

      I can't hear you anymore

  80. There will be consequences by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.

    Regardless of the rightness of what he did, he is likely to be a price to pay for doing it. Acts of defiance, no matter how justified, are rarely without consequence to the person doing them. Nation states tend to not like to be embarrassed and they are very powerful even when what they are doing is wrong.

  81. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Apparently reading comprehension is low here today. I did not say not to go public.

    What I did say, is follow procedures put in place, and if that does not work, go public, and expect consequences.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  82. the alternative is worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately the State and local governments are worse.

    And the fruitcakes who want to replace them are still worse yet, those being Libertarians and Greens.

    1. Re:the alternative is worse. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      State and local governments are worse? When is the last time a city started a war that killed tens of millions? Government is a necessary evil, but make no mistake, it is evil. The larger the government, the greater the evil it can perpetrate.

  83. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.

    There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.

    So you don't know whether Snowden followed internal channels, or whether those channels would have been at all fruitful. But you know that he absolutely did not go about this in the right manner. Got it.

    Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.

    Do you expect that if he had gone up his chain of command, whatever that was, that he would have been heard out and this program would have been made public? I do not. I expect it would have been kept quiet, and he would have been fired. He'd be a target at that point, having made known his opinions. No, the only way to make this program public knowledge was to leak it to the press, just as he did.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  84. abide by the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.

    Since when is spying on American citizens w/o just cause abiding by our laws?

  85. Isn't he already dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Snowden was killed over Avignon.

    1. Re:Isn't he already dead? by Erbo · · Score: 1

      Ou sont les Neigedens d'antan?

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
  86. Abide by the law by Shark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"

    I would say the latter part trumps the former and a pretty good case could be made that spying on US citizens is illegal unless you change the constitution.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  87. Yes he likely faces prosecution by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.

    We don't actually know if he is right at this point but it is correct that he is likely to face prosecution.

    Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon

    No, it's how the system is designed to work. The government thinks you broke a law and so you go to trial where the legality of the matter is adjudicated. If the law is in violation of the Constitution, we have a Supreme Court to deal with that. Congress can intervene as well in theory. What would make the system corrupt is if the person was jailed in spite of being obviously innocent of the law as written. In this case he may be "right" but he may also have broken the law which we'll need a trial to decide. Whether the NSA was breaking the law or not is a separate issue which will be separately adjudicated. Even if the government is misbehaving the laws relating to release of confidential information are rather clear when it comes to the consequences of releasing such information. In any case the wheels of justice are likely to turn slowly and I think he is in for a rough couple of years even in the most optimistic scenario.

    1. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      We don't actually know if he is right at this point

      What in the world do you mean? Do you think it is fine that the government was secretly monitoring everyone's phone records?

      In this case he may be "right" but he may also have broken the law which we'll need a trial to decide.

      At this point, a trial is a formality. He claims he broke the law, and now the government is agreeing with him. The trial is to establish some facts for the record and sentencing. It also does not appear that the NSA broke any laws - everything seems to be on the up-and-up.

      And THAT is the problem. Our system is now set up such that the government can monitor the details of every phone call made by every American, secretly and legally.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by sjbe · · Score: 1

      What in the world do you mean? Do you think it is fine that the government was secretly monitoring everyone's phone records?

      Not at all. I merely mean that we do not have all the facts yet. On the surface it looks pretty damning of the government but I'd be shocked if we know the whole picture at this point.

      At this point, a trial is a formality. He claims he broke the law, and now the government is agreeing with him.

      Fair enough. His guilt has little to do with whether what he did was justified. Sometimes one has to break the law to do the right thing.

      It also does not appear that the NSA broke any laws - everything seems to be on the up-and-up.

      He may have broken the law but in my opinion so did the NSA and absent evidence to the contrary I consider the NSA's conduct worse. Specifically I think the NSA violated the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search at the very least. I *know* that the government has no probable cause to search my phone or email records. Furthermore there is no reasonable justification for such a sweeping program being secret. Prudent people doing malicious things should have assumed their communications weren't secret so the only reason for such secrecy is because the program is of questionable legality.

      Our system is now set up such that the government can monitor the details of every phone call made by every American, secretly and legally.

      Rather scary isn't it? Realistically I suspect this recent revelation is just the tip of the iceberg.

    3. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by Spamalope · · Score: 1
      Acting as he did is exactly the right thing to do when the 'system' has been hacked to prevent it from working. While he should be given a medal (and asylum/witness protection), turning himself in to for the punishment the Hoover-like criminals think you deserve for exposing them is reasonable? That's a special breed of insanity you have.

      If the law is in violation of the Constitution

      This story already has violations of the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Are you this apathetic even now? Really?

    4. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Rather scary isn't it? Realistically I suspect this recent revelation is just the tip of the iceberg.

      Agreed. The funny thing is that two weeks ago a friend and I were working out cocktail napkin figures for how much storage space they would need for all of this. I felt a little bit like a conspiracy nut at the time, but now I feel vindicated :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Even if he gets convicted...the President could pardon him.

      Many previous presidents have pardoned a lot of people on their way out of office, some of them were somewhat nefarious too.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Acting as he did is exactly the right thing to do when the 'system' has been hacked to prevent it from working. While he should be given a medal (and asylum/witness protection), turning himself in to for the punishment the Hoover-like criminals think you deserve for exposing them is reasonable? That's a special breed of insanity you have.

      First off, calling someone "insane" is a juvenile way to make a point. Grow up. Second off you need to actually read what I wrote. Whether what he did is right or not has NOTHING to do with whether he will face prosecution. The government WILL attempt to prosecute him because they believe he violated the law which he may very well have done. Releasing information classified as top secret is considered a crime regardless of what kind of information it is. His actions very likely were the right thing to do but that is not incompatible with being against the law as well. It's situations like this where we have an opportunity to correct government malfeasance. It used to be legal to own slaves but that didn't mean it was the right thing to do and a lot of people had to endure some pretty brutal treatment from the government to get that changed.

      We may very well owe this gentleman a debt of gratitude but he is likely going to suffer for his actions no matter their justification. What should happen (but won't) is that either he or individuals the NSA (and other branches of government as appropriate) should get punished but not both. I don't really see a case where both parties can be justified in their actions from an ethical point of view. Legally they could both be wrong but probably not morally.

      This story already has violations of the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Are you this apathetic even now? Really?

      Wow, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here? Look, I STRONGLY believe that the NSA was likely violating at minimum our 4th amendment rights but this is a big mess and the only thing I'm certain of is that I don't know all the details yet and neither do you. This matter will take years to settle and a knee jerk reaction based on the limited (though seemingly damning) facts we have so far serves little purpose.

    7. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What in the world do you mean? Do you think it is fine that the government was secretly monitoring everyone's phone records?

      Not at all. I merely mean that we do not have all the facts yet. On the surface it looks pretty damning of the government but I'd be shocked if we know the whole picture at this point.

      What additional facts do you expect? No one is disputing the veracity of the document he leaked, and not only has the government not denied that the domestic surveillance is going on, but that we should all just accept it because it's been going on for years.

      What possible facts could come out to make this seem better? We all know that they claim to be doing it under the guise of anti-terrorism, but many people aren't willing to give up privacy and allow all of their electronic audit trails to be cataloged by the government in return for some small reduction in terrorism. And I really think that blanket surveillance is going to have only a modest effect against terrorism since there are many ways for a terorrist cell to communicate without arousing suspicion.

    8. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by hawguy · · Score: 1

      This story already has violations of the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Are you this apathetic even now? Really?

      Wow, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here? Look, I STRONGLY believe that the NSA was likely violating at minimum our 4th amendment rights but this is a big mess and the only thing I'm certain of is that I don't know all the details yet and neither do you. This matter will take years to settle and a knee jerk reaction based on the limited (though seemingly damning) facts we have so far serves little purpose.

      Well, no, the Constitutional right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence doesn't apply to the government. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from an overbearing government, it's not supposed to protect the government from the People asserting their Rights. The Government makes the rules, so they already have an upper hand, there's no reason to assume their innocence.

    9. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your 4th amendment rights don't usually come into play until you are actively being investigated or charged with a crime based on evidence that was collected illegally. So the question becomes how many people have been unjustly charged with a crime based on the information the government is collecting?

    10. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone please mod parent as funny.

      President Figurehead is like anonymous. He doesn't forgive and he doesn't forget. In fact, he's a vindictive asshole.

    11. Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution by s.petry · · Score: 1

      What possible facts could come out to make this seem better? We all know that they claim to be doing it under the guise of anti-terrorism, but many people aren't willing to give up privacy and allow all of their electronic audit trails to be cataloged by the government in return for some small reduction in terrorism. And I really think that blanket surveillance is going to have only a modest effect against terrorism since there are many ways for a terorrist cell to communicate without arousing suspicion.

      Except that the US is not a pure democracy, but a democratic republic. The rule of law is the Constitution, and all other laws must abide by that document. We have processes to change the Constitution, but that was not done here. The Government can NOT simply ignore the constitution for any reason. In ignoring the constitution, each and every person that voted to deny basic human rights is guilty of treason. More-so than a whistle blower by far.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  88. freeedwardsnowden.org by Geste · · Score: 1

    This domain was registered as of last evening (by somebody else, privately).

    I have some Free Edward Snowden bumper stickers coming from "makestickers.com".

    Not very hopeful for this brave guy, though, and I generally think of bumper stickers as a cheap "feel good" sentiment. I just wanted to be proactive.

    Of course, I'm not feeling so good right now. Just got an email from Barack Obama saying I could have save 40 percent if I had ordered 100 stickers.

  89. remember the Nuremberg Principles by echtertyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Re: he had clearance, and orders, and trusted access... the U.S. itself insisted in 1945, rightly so, that individuals must listen to their conscience, regardless of their official obligations.

    1. Re:remember the Nuremberg Principles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good person will resist an evil system with his whole soul. Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is therefore a duty. --Mahatma Gandhi

  90. Thats BS by gordona · · Score: 1

    If you listen to the interview between Greenwald and Snowden (on http://democracynow.org/ you will see that Snowden could have released a lot of information that could have made him a lot of money and pretty much taken down the whole program by exposing specific details about programs and individuals. He did none of that. It should be up to the American people to decide if we want such surveillance. If we do then keep these programs. If not then the answer is obvious.

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:Thats BS by Hartree · · Score: 1

      No. He said that he had information that would be worth lots of money. Crucial difference.

      It may be true, but people say many things. What he's revealed so far isn't that big of a revelation or surprise and probably wasn't worth all that much money.

    2. Re:Thats BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok. But he had other information that could be worth lots. What he actually revealed is of course known by everyone except folks here who want to keep their heads buried in the sand.

  91. 4th amendment violation by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation.

    There is no express right to privacy in the US Constitution. The word privacy does not appear anywhere in the document. Several amendments including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th as well as various case law rulings indirectly guarantee some rights we regard as privacy rights. You don't need to refer to a generalized right to privacy here. It appears that the primary issue here is that the NSA has violated the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search. Speaking for myself, the government has no probable cause to need such information about me or my activities. Presumably the same is true for most US citizens.

    I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA finds the information useful. I also think they are violating the law by merely gathering the information. If any arm of the government genuinely needs this information they should have to get that right publicly approved by Congress. A competent enemy of the state would have assumed they were gathering such information anyway so keeping the existence of the program a secret serves no purpose other than to hide activity in violation of the law.

    1. Re:4th amendment violation by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > There is no express right to privacy in the US Constitution.

      That would be a lot more convincing if the US were a Roman Law or Napoleonic Law nation but it's not.

      It is the powers of government that are limited under US Law.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  92. Blind loyalty. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given tendencies over the last 5+ years I predict nothing will happen. Few will bat an eye if Snowden gets extradited, tried and convicted.

    Every time some scandal has surfaced it's followed the same pattern:
    1) It's dismissed as fabrication until evidence surfaces. The day I heard of this spy program the reports were all pointing out that everyone was denying this program existed.
    2) The story is trivialized, the talking heads can't understand why the story persists and dismiss it as opponents trying to vilify the president. I've heard this repeated time again on CNN and elsewhere.
    3) Dredge up some action from the prior administration to establish moral equivalency. There's a lot to blame Bush for, and he helped enable a lot of the problems we're seeing now, but a lot of stuff unfolding doesn't come close to being on the same level. If it had been we would probably had seen riots in the streets.
    4) Dismiss it as one of those things that just happens or attribute blame to the prior administration. This, again, another attempt to marginalize the situation as overblown. I've noticed as tendency to see every little bit of news as evidence the story is a fabrication even when the pieces clearly don't add up. If Bush had been president these same people would have latched onto these stories with all fervor and demanded his hanging.

    That's the fundamental problem here; how blindly loyal people are to Obama. The most telling aspect is that people were taking to the streets in protest during Bush's rule over less and now they're conspicuously silent. It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle. The problem isn't that people were complaining then, it's that they're not doing so now. Without question Bush had his own flock of sheep, but conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today. The Tea Party, before being co-opted by Republicans and turned into a joke, came to rise during the Bush administration. And that's when they aren't also making a joke of the Green or Libertarian party.

    For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. One of the big reason being that they don't like being forced to tick off every conservative box. I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault. When, for example, a liberal site lavishes praise on someone like Barney Frank, corrupt and having had a hand in the real estate bubble, you've really got to question the legitimacy principles. If you can't identify the problems in your own party and find good ideas in others, there are some real problems.

    I will acknowledge that the response on Slashdot has been far more balanced than I've seen elsewhere. I'm actually impressed because it's a far better environment for discussion than it was back in 2008.

    1. Re:Blind loyalty. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle.

      Neither. It's about rooting for "your" team. All to often politics is reduced to that, on both sides of the aisle.

      conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today ... For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. ... I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault.

      Swap "Bush" and "Obama", "conservatives" and "liberals", and "Republicans" and "Democrats", and this could easily be a comment from a left wing site. Absent any realistic and objective way to determine the accuracy of these statements, I'll chalk it up to perspective.

  93. Nothing to hide by sepiroth · · Score: 1

    Dear NSA, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

  94. Does he have a plan? Will it work? by emil · · Score: 1

    Commentary is that Hong Kong was a terrible choice for sanctuary (as they extradite). Does Snowden know something that we do not?

    If he is captured, has he prepared the release of more damaging documents?

    Does Ecuador have an embassy in Hong Kong? If so, I hope the couches are comfortable, and it's close to Snowden's hotel.

  95. How dare he support transparency! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Does anybody on eiher side think the government won't use this system to track everyone here who posts in support of this guy?

    Dear lord, please just let me be a paranoiac.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  96. Petition to pardon Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  97. Here's a thought by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a necessary trade off between intelligence gathering for the purpose of law enforcement and national security and citizens' right to privacy. Public sentiment at this point may be that the NSA has overstepped an ethical boundary and possibly Constitutional principles. What concerns me is the motivation that drove them to do so and what we can do in the future to keep them (and other agencies) clear of these boundaries.

    Giving our government the power to peer into our private lives in return for security is one thing. But I don't recall a Constitutional clause permitting Booz Allen Hamilton to do so. I fact, I suspect that a lot of the NSA/FBI/CIA motivation for these huge data collection projects is the lobbying being done by contractors getting a piece of the action. Given a law restricting access to citizens' personal data only to civil servants and elected officials, I suspect that these agencies will reign in their data collection efforts to those absolutely necessary for their charters.

    I don't have a problem with the NSA hiring contractors to put up a data center. But lets restrict its operation to direct employees alone and I'll bet they will be a lot more careful with their espionage dollars. Such a law will also go a long way toward putting a stop to another issue I haven't seen too much discussion on. That is; private contractors utilizing their access privileges to sensitive data for their own benefit. Having worked inside the 'military-industrial complex' for a few decades, I have seen numerous instances in which access to foreign intelligence product was used for purely economic advantage by private contractors. Inevitably, giving private contractors access to citizens' personal data will be leveraged for profit. Its one thing if a Google or Microsoft does this within the boundaries of the law. But given the trust we give to government agencies, having their data go right out their back door is just wrong.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  98. Stay in Hong Kong by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    I hope China denies the request. It's really scary when whistle blowers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

  99. But, but, but... by nigelo · · Score: 1

    The front page of the petition website *still* clearly says:

            âoeMy administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and efffectiveness in government.â

    â" President Barack Obama

    --
    *Still* negative function...
  100. Right to privacy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It is the powers of government that are limited under US Law.

    That doesn't change the fact that there is no enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution nor is there an explicit prohibition against violation of such either - at least not directly. There are some limitations put on the government but they are hardly all encompassing when it comes to privacy issues. There is not even a coherent definition of the term privacy as it relates to our laws. What we have is a patchwork of various laws, findings and traditions which make up what we somewhat inaccurately call our "right to privacy". Unfortunately from time to time our government seems to feel it necessary to test the limits of its authority and we get problems like this NSA dragnet.

    1. Re:Right to privacy by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      If you accept that phone records are personal effects belonging to either you or the phone company than the fourth amendment applies. The fourth amendment requires a "probably cause" standard, where FISA has been granting warrants on what most courts would consider a reasonable suspicion standard at a best; which is much lower.

      So warrant or not what the NSA was doing should be viewed as unconstitutional; as the warrants themselves are not valid! Its treasonous because it undermines people faith in government, thereby providing aide to the enemy "terrorists" looking to radicalize people for recruiting. Forget Snowden, I want to see some executions of current NSA personnel; they are after all the ones supporting terror.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  101. Missing the point by bkmoore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of comments are about the morality of releasing the documents (constitution vs. obeying orders) seem to be missing the larger point. In Snowden's own words from his interview with the Guardian, the American people need to decide if this federal data collection problem is right or wrong. From all appearances, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) are firmly in the grip of the industrial-security complex. How can we change this? How can we make the government respect the will of the majority of its citizens with regards to individual privacy rights and due process? President Obama said that "he welcomes the debate". Would he have welcomed the debate last week? How can we have an honest public debate when anyone who provides documents is immediately threatened with life in the slammer?

    As long as both parties tow the same common line on security issues, I hope that there will be more and more Snowdens and Mannings, because for a lot of these people, there is no other recourse than to go the press and hope that public opinion comes down on their side. If these programs really do save lives, the government needs to finally come clean and stop just saying "just trust us." I wish Snowden good luck and hope that he finds asylum somewhere safe, and I hope that if someday sanity returns to the federal government, he can come home without being threatened.

    1. Re:Missing the point by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Well the simple answer is to de-elect both parties. Up until now, many Americans have scoffed at the idea of voting for a third party, or for not voting for a party at all, but for a person. Much of this, I suspect, is laziness, fear, and loyalty -> they want a button, on the voting machine, that says "The Correct Guy / Gal," but want to do zero research into whether or not it is, in fact, the correct guy / gal. Then there's the perennial fear that if they don't vote for the compromise, the other guy / gal will get in, which will mean the end of the world as we know it. And then there's the loyalty aspect -> "All my friends are voting R or D, so I am going to vote R or D." The wonders of socialization.

      As for the moral ambiguity / guilt individuals feel about "letting down the nation by not compromising their beliefs" -> a five minute course with a philosophy major should fix that. It starts with this "Would you compromise your beliefs, your ideals?" The answer is yes, from most people. A person wants a Green party candidate, but chooses a Democrat, because they are swayed by the need to sacrifice their ideals for the greater good. Enough people do this so the Green party never rises in prominence, with every election resulting in Democrats being elected, when an outstanding amount of support had been with Greens up until that moment. Because the Green party never rises in prominence, it is never seen as a viable alternative to the Democrat party...so the sacrifices never end. Every election, the ideals of so many are offered up, out of fear, out of loyalty, out of compliance. This is why things fail to change, in a big way...the only changes you really see are as a result of decay or corruption, as people are so wedded / welded to their ways, it's only when a neighborhood slides into the sea that popular fervor rises enough to do something about it....when the plans to prevent it were on the books for ages, the budget repeatedly voted upon and amended, and the implementation given out to three different departments, which then subcontracted it to someone else.

      It would be a model for perpetual stability if the universe allowed for such things, but sadly, it is instead a very slow decline.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  102. Messenger shootings are up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they are going to shoot the messenger! It distracts people from looking at the message, and that message is that the US government doesn't trust its own people. It will spy on people. It will store all your records. It knows what you eat, where you sleep, who you fuck, and which brands you use to brush your teeth and wipe your butt. We are already looking at governments nosing through this information to get re-elected, to get you to look elsewhere when atrocities are committed, and eventually as a source of funding (the government will sell the information to the highest bidding corporation). After all, if public policy is being authored in corporate boardrooms already, they may as well access all of that government information to sell you more stuff, access your bank accounts, and tell you what to think. 1. You don't need a raise. 2. You don't need holidays. 3. We can install cots in the basement at work, and you can sleep there. It will save commuting time, and you can work longer days. 4. We have determined that you aren't qualified to have a family. Only management level people or higher can have children. 5. If you get sick or do anything wrong, the company (in close cooperation with the government) can throw you out onto the street (in winter, and without company issue clothing). If you go looking for work somewhere else, you may be (ok, likely will be) shot for panhandling. Air and roads are for managers and directors, and to transport goods, and remove used employees from businesses (to be disposed of in a landfill/cemetary).

  103. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    It's not that surprising. CIA is in the business of intelligence. They're not necessarily going to be experts at making the tools they use. Do you expect a carpenter to know how to manufacture a spirit level or a saw blade? People tend to forget that sometimes it's really best to farm things out.

    A buddy of mine has top secret clearance working for a company that built computer systems to ... well I don't really know because he couldn't tell me. But even with clearance, there was always an officer escorting him everywhere. Even the bathroom.

    I don't know what I find more disturbing the fact that he was able to smuggle out these PowerPoint presentations, or that the slides are just so god-awful.

  104. An aside: Coporations are government created by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    We have enough trouble with 3 letter depts in government, but when they get contractors it all gets so much worse - especially when those contractors can do the SAME SERVICES for anybody.

    A corporation is a government defined, sanctioned, regulated creation. Without government, there are no corporations at all. Therefore, how can the government create an organization which it can then hire to circumvent all the constitutional limitations on government power?

    Just a few years ago there was a court case saying the government couldn't circumvent the law by hiring 4rd parties (because the law said no 3rd party hiring so they hired a 4th party until the judge stopped the ridiculous exploit.)

      A corporation shouldn't be allowed to do anymore than the government can. I don't care if they are initialized and run by citizens; it is no different than the government paying an assassin to kill you and claiming they didn't violate your rights - the assassin did it. Oh, wait... they are doing that one directly already.

    How we can let these lawyers get away with obvious word games that insult basic reasoning? I'd like to know.

  105. FIFY by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    "Edward Snowden, the leaker who gave us the evidence of US government spying on its people is under threat of being extradited back to the U.S. to face persecution."

    No Law or Act can be construed as to compel any person to conceal the commission of a crime, including crimes committed by government against its Citizens.

    1. Re:FIFY by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Is that a quote? If so, from what document?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:FIFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concealing the commission of a crime of this magnitude falls under 18 USC 4. He had a legal duty, having knowledge of the commission of a Felony, to take action within his power to ensure the Felony was prosecuted.

  106. Stay classy, Peter King. by Minwee · · Score: 2

    Snowden's actions seem pretty well justified. After all, didn't he swear an oath before he started his job which went something like this:

    I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

    Oh, wait. That's the oath that Congressmen have been taking for the past 130 years, but apparently ignore whenever it gets to be inconvenient. Never mind.

  107. NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys, this is why everyone signs a non-disclosure agreement.....don't want to work the job, DON'T sign it and leave.

    1. Re:NDA by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Does the government typically extradite people for breach of contract?

    2. Re:NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No contract may compel someone to conceal the commission of a crime, just like no Law or Act can compel same.

      Any Law that would compel someone to conceal the commission of a crime, *especially* a willful act of sedition by government, is unenforceable.

  108. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    In this sort of position, if you are using contractors because "they are easier to fire", then you're using the wrong people. Period. Contractors have no loyalty other than to make sure their parent company is getting enough out of them to pay their bills. These are also the people you do NOT want in this type of position. Contractors fill temporary (contracted) roles. They are never meant to be used for permanent positions. I'm not trying to bash contractors here too much, as I was one for many years. But they fill certain roles, and being anywhere near classified government data, is not one of them!

  109. wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Snowden "leaks" that the NSA and their puppets (Google, MS, Skype, etc.) have been spying on Americans.

    The NSA and their puppets say it's all not true, there's no spying going on of Americans.

    So what then is the USJS requesting Snowden be extradited for? Telling "untruths" about the NSA? Is that really something that one can be tried for, let alone extradited to be tried for?

    So, NSA and USJS, what is it? Were you spying or weren't you? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  110. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

    Beyond the legal benefits of hiring contractors, there are also budget considerations. An agency might have only a small amount of their budget allocated to staffing, but they can spread the larger share allocated to contracting, and thereby get the contractor's work force. Often it's cheaper to hire a contractor than to get a federal employee.

    It all goes back to Congress being unable to set a budget. When budgets get tight, essential positions get contracted out to people who may not deserve them. You get what you pay for, even -- especially -- in government.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  111. Idiotic media by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Even the minority who think are fed garbage by the "press" which is in bed with the government. Remember the New York times sat on the Pentagon Papers, US Torture (before the 2004 election,) ignored Manning and printed Cheney's lies about WMD as a "leak". They only say anything after the fact when there is no alternative; or are caught printing lies. and they are "the best" newspaper we've got?

    Bush setup the legal groundwork for domestic spying, tried to do it for torture (in a totally bogus way,) and did make claims they could kill people like Obama is doing now. Bush didn't use all the stuff he setup. I think Bush could have gone further but didn't have the guts; so the next guy did it. I don't think Obama has taken things that far at all; Bush didn't use all the powers he claimed.

    It is oversimplification to flatly compare it to when Bush did it. History doesn't repeat. It rhymes. This rhymes, the tables are turned. The outrage today is because the formerly blind are waking up, it is their turn to get upset-- and the formerly upset can take their turn defending it... It rhymes. We didn't do jack about Bush's illegal actions and even turned around and passed laws to legitimize/legalize his crimes after the fact. So now when Obama does it with some legal backing it is not the same situation and more people are used to it.

    We've been Tony Blaired. It's all one big good cop/bad cop game the whole time - with the UK, you know who the bitch is; but who is the real master of the USA?

  112. about the Constitution by JigJag · · Score: 1

    It might seem trivial to many readers here, but I just wanted to remind the younguns here what does a Constitution mean, what it is for, and who should not be its authors.

    I speak of all Constitutions, not just the one in the US.

    So whether you're in France, Spain, Denmark, Honduras or any other country (except Canada, UK, NZ and Israel), there is a document, called the Constitution that is specifically crafted to restrict what all branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) of the land can do against you. It's created as a protection against abuses. Any law passed must first and foremost not run afoul of the Constitution otherwise it's non enforceable (that's the primary goal of the Constitution).

    In light of this, let me ask you the question: who should write a country's Constitution? Do you believe it would be in your interest to have politicians, lawyers, or judges write your Constitution? What do you think would happen if that were the case?

    Now, let me ask you another question: what do you do when all 3 branches collude to bypass the Constitution? In theory, you'd have the military involved to remove the offenders and restore the system. In fact, modern societies work the way they do only because of the threat of their own military. Without it, any group large enough could overpower the police and replace by force the current political/judiciary/legislative power with one of its own.

    In light of this, it is *critical* that the military branch abides by its Constitution, even if it's in opposition to what they have been commanded to do by any branch of government having power to order or to restrict the military.

    That said, what you have here in the case of an individual who chose to be under the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States of America. According to this Constitution, the government is not allowed to spy on its citizen. He reported the unconstitutional conduct of its government to the public and in theory should be protected by the US military, who should also intervene if the other branches won't.

    In summary, a government in place is expected to obey its Constitution the same way that you, a citizen, are supposed to obey the laws that government made.

    Please note I'm not advocating a political system over another or praising its workings, only stating that textbooks say about the Constitution. In my opinion (and you're free to disagree with me), any document crafted by man, no matter how well-intentioned, will necessarily be faulty, and its enforcement will be just as faulty.

    --
    "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
  113. Re:Yah Snowden's a bona-fide bad guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA is a civilian organization. It is not in any way military, or run by the military, or accountable to the military.

    And you should stop posting.

  114. Two words Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patriot Act was enacted on the heals of 9/11. Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary tool to find and prosecute those responsible. It has been extended by every congress since. This man knew he faced jail time for his crime and he accepted that. He wants people to focus on getting this law repealed so due process and checks and balances are re-enforced. The president and congress will not act until the public acts. These prosecutions will continue until we call in one voice to eliminate laws like this.

  115. Republican stupidty by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Republicans should be taking the high road on this, expressing outrage, giving Snowden a pardon, and then hold Obama responsible. But I suspect both parties are deeply enough involved in this that neither wants it to come out.

    1. Re:Republican stupidty by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      This is a fully bi-partisan chamber of horrors.

    2. Re:Republican stupidty by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Even if they weren't up to their eyeballs in it, I doubt that would be a good political move for the Republicans. There are both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian parts of the right wing (same for the left wing) but I strongly suspect that the more authoritarian side is a majority of Republican voters.

    3. Re:Republican stupidty by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The more authoritarian side is the majority in both parties. Since this is becoming a major issue for young voters, it would be good for them to take the initiative.

    4. Re:Republican stupidty by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is. But it would be smart for one party to leave and and say that they are "shocked, SHOCKED" that the other party would do such a thing.

    5. Re:Republican stupidty by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Since this is becoming a major issue for young voters, it would be good for them to take the initiative.

      Devoutly to be wished that younger voters are like that, but I'm skeptical. If anything they seem to be less concerned about privacy issues than their parents.

  116. wait a minute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we're cutting funding to the FAA and flying planes without air traffic controllers, but we're spending how much to spy on american citizens?

  117. Re:Happy Yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did not actually break the Law, because no Law can compel someone to conceal the commission of a crime.

  118. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never have so many nobodies been CERTAIN that the government is spying on them. Get over yourselves... no one cares about you, least of all the gov't.

  119. Now that the data exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long before the data is accessed for "law enforcement" purposes ? ...

    When the FBI needs info on who met who when and where as part of a racketeering case .... or after a child killing of mass shooting to identify who was in the area .... maybe progress to starting most major crime investigations by first trawling for the IDs of everyone in the crime area ....

    Not to mention labeling anti-ruling-party groups as anti-goverment..

    and we know that the bad guys often avoid phone tracking by taking the batteries out of their phones when attending meetings (as bin-laden's courier did)...

    then there are private detectives working on divorce cases who might have "friends" in the police/FBI who can check if pnones spent time together ..

    Claiming that the records aren't accessed except for notional security reasons is avoiding the implications

  120. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one with their jaw on the ground that the NSA and CIA are hiring contractors as full time employees in top secret positions with access to everything

    Government pay scales essentially prevent them from directly employing the best and brightest. Anyone in the top 10% of the computer industry can make more money in the commercial world, sometimes much more. Contractors are the only way the government can retain the services of that top 10%.

  121. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh they have names. . . . . just the names usually refer to specific programs and are, themselves, classified.

    For example, the last clearance I possessed was a Cosmic Topsecret Specat ( classified name goes here )

    No laughing at the Cosmic designation :D It's quite real lol

  122. Make Your choice, America. by Black+Dragon · · Score: 0

    Very soon now, the American people will have to make a stark and simple choice: free country or not. Liberty, privacy and a government bound by the chains of the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers intended, or a totalitarian panopticon police state which spies on and jails its people at home while waging endless wars of choice abroad to feed an enormous unneeded war machine which is bankrupting the nation.

    The United States has more people behind bars than any other country in the world right now, and that number is climbing - daily. Bullying and abuse of the citizenry by the government and the corporations which own it is growing more and more brazen. Each day we are treated less like free citizens and more and more like cattle, or as sheep to be sheared. When does the government stop reading our emails, wiretapping and spying on us all without cause or warrant? When do we stop being treated like dangerous criminals just for trying to get on an airplane? When do we stop having cameras watch us each time we step outside our doors? When does the militarization of our police and the murder and imprisoning of free human beings in the so-called War on Drugs/crime/terrorism/whatever stop? When is this "War on Terror" supposed to end, anyway?

    When do we become a free country again?

    Fellow Americans, please understand that Democrats & Republicans are NO DIFFERENT from one another! Both are controlled by the 1%, both support the same anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies and both are slowly but surely turning these United States into a shiny new, ultra high-tech version of the good ol' USSR. If you don't stop supporting these filth, and start standing up for your liberties and privacy in a real and substantial way, you will die as slaves, and your children will never know freedom until after a long and bloody sojourn in darkness.

    Hey it's your choice, America. Do you want to be free, or not? And yes, freedom - real freedom - carries risks, dangers and inconveniences. Boo hoo. Deal.

    --

    1. Re:Make Your choice, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to demand free pot for all!

      Why are all of you pro-pot, OWS, Ron Paul dick-sucking drug addicts so transparent? Do you have any idea that you're not fooling anyone other than yourself?

      The NSA is only interested in calls from foreign persons of interest, and is only looking at that data. Ordinary Citizens have absolutely nothing to fear because, quite honestly, our government isn't interested in what you had for breakfast.

    2. Re:Make Your choice, America. by Black+Dragon · · Score: 1

      You forgot to demand free pot for all!

      Why are all of you pro-pot, OWS, Ron Paul dick-sucking drug addicts so transparent? Do you have any idea that you're not fooling anyone other than yourself?

      The NSA is only interested in calls from foreign persons of interest, and is only looking at that data. Ordinary Citizens have absolutely nothing to fear because, quite honestly, our government isn't interested in what you had for breakfast.

      I..don't think I've ever read such an egregious example of concentrated stupidity leavened with willful naivete in my entire life. I am stunned. Congrats. And enjoy the Kool-aid.

      --

  123. CIA Plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN reported on it, and CNN is nothing but a NWO propaganda puppet that broadcast stories that Obama wants to be talked about. That means, Snowden is likely a CIA plant, in order to get China to negotiate on something.

  124. Snowden was a character in Catch-22 by swm · · Score: 1

    Snowden was a character in Catch-22.
    He came to a bad end.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    1. Re:Snowden was a character in Catch-22 by preflex · · Score: 1

      Snowden spills his guts then dies.

  125. one of the real reasons.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides of course really wanting to nail this guy to the cross, the real reason our government wants him extradited so badly is that this guy knows way to many secrets to be leaving him in the hands of the Chinese. He's worked for both the CIA and NSA, he knows a lot about agents and operations in the field. Every second he is in their hands he could be feeding them information. I find it interesting he went to China of all places, I wonder what that even means. Maybe he figured it was one of the few countries that wouldn't extradite him quickly? Whereas other countries, even ones that claim they don't extradite (e.g. Sweden) have shown they won't stand up for their own principles or sovereignty. I think in this regard China hasn't been tested yet. My guess is that they'll fold to U.S. demands of extradition, because there are too many deals on the table that can be pulled away under their feet to risk not extraditing. He wants asylum in Iceland, but I don't think Iceland would protect him to be honest.

  126. Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame on America

  127. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Just realize that in his situation if he had done A), he probably wouldn't have been able to do B).

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  128. Hero. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He knew he was going to earn the ire of a government full of scumbags and sheisters - will probably get tortured and imprisoned for life - for letting us know that the government and corporations are absolutely ignoring our RIGHT to privacy.

    The government cannot just ignore our RIGHTS.

    This BS has gone on for long and far enough - but is it now too far gone for anything to be done 'politically' to solve the issue.

  129. Republican Peter King (R-NY), Shawn Turner, by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    what about your own responsibilities to serve the people and follow the law? You're all a bunch of fucking hypocrites and if you had any ethics you'd be ashamed of yourselves. But no, instead you'll do what you can to make this man out to be the evil while ignoring your own complicity in eroding what the United States was founded on.

    Fuck you.

  130. yjr vittrmvu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hereby call for the extradition of James Clapper. Take everything, give nothing back.

  131. Must have hit close to home by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    When both Republicans and Democrats are calling for his head, you know there has to be something going on. I believe both sides use our intelligence services (and other Federal agencies) for their own benefit, both politically and financially. They want power and know no bounds to getting that power.

    There are two sides in this debate, and they're not the usual left vs right or Republican vs Democrat. It's the government vs the people, and the government is not too happy when we the people discover just how dirty and corrupt they are.

    I heard the Snowden interview. He's right; they're wrong. He's a patriot; they're out for themselves.

    This country is fast becoming a police state with a totalitarian government. When are the people going to wake up and take the power back?

  132. Wasn't this all known already by MetalOne · · Score: 1

    I remember years ago, under the Bush administration that the Telcoms were caught recording this information. It was a big deal in the news for about 2 days and then gone. Absolutely no one was held accountable. No one promised to stop recording this information. Sometime later Congress passed a bill giving the Telcoms immunity for collecting this information. No one would reasonable assume that the activity was stopped because this information came out. The only real surprise to me is that they are not recording the contents of the calls. I seem to recall that the Telcoms recorded this at the behest of the NSA, but I can recall reading similar stories that the FBI are also collecting similar information. I also remember how Quest was the only Telcom that did not comply and that the CEO is now in jail for insider trading. I don't think his jail time is simply a coincidence. I also remember some group that tried to sue the government over this data collection, but were ultimately denied because the government did not waive their right to be sued on this matter. Sorry, I don't remember any of the details of the above. The government has simply decided that this information is not private, because it flows through servers owned by other people. I don't agree with this argument, but it has been upheld by the courts. Is the only bit of new information here the fact that this activity was not stopped when previously discovered?

  133. Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've already signed this petition

    Thank you for participating. Find other petitions you're interested in or start your own.

    I have not.

    Seems very suspicious! Government is trying to stop people from signing...

  134. Have you tried turning it off and on again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the IT guy fry.

  135. Classification IS B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US DoEnergy STILL has "classified" documents in their inventory which ANYONE with $20 to burn can buy from the US Government Printing Office.

    Been there, done that, carried a copy of one of those documents into "my office" and was told that I was not allowed to "have it in my possesion" because the document list at that "facility" was NEVER, EVER, updated.

    In my not-so-humble opinion, and experience in and out of "classified" work, the ONLY reason that "Top Secret" is used, is for crony crapitalism to keep the information out of competitor's hands.

  136. Rotten core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this happened because the security establishment created a system where they could get retroactive and secret warrants for information. And then they stopped bothering to get the retroactive and secret warrants.

    The government and it's personnel couldn't say Yes fast enough. Too few citizens complained. The government erected endless hurdles including:

    1). The warrant is secret, therefore you cannot see it;
    2). The evidence is secret, therefore you cannot see it;
    3). The people are secret, therefore not only are you not allowed to question them, you cannot even know their names;
    4). The threat is great and the time is too short, therefore they cannot follow due process;
    5). You cannot prove harm, therefore there is no harm (nevermind that violation of privacy is harm);

    6). You have no standing, therefore your concerns are invalid (nevermind that the data mining is so extensive that everyone has standing).

    The CIA got smacked down in the 60's and 70's for this kind of activity. The FBI was put on a short leash, but only after J. Edgar Hoover's death, for this kind of activity. I predict the security establishment will eventually get jerked up short again. No bets on when though, or what will trigger the revulsion needed.

  137. Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is a very serious issue and I for one am grateful that we have brave people like Snowden in the NSA who are unwilling to violate the Constitution and are willing to put their own lives at stake to report it to the people via the most public means possible"

    He did not violate the constitution. Au contraire. He violated the the rules that violated said constitution.

    Hero in my book,

  138. USDC ED VA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going straight to that Rocket Docket Court in the Eastern District of Virginia where all the terrorists have been tried. The jury pool is sworn to convict. Either that or the airplane carrying Mr. Snowden will be shot out of the sky like KAL 007 back in 1983. What of the others on that flight? It is called "Dilution of suspicion in tragedy". The black box will never be recovered since the "Pacific is too deep". If this does happen, people better wise up and stop being prisoner to their toys and |$.?!*
    NO CARRIER

  139. Nothing is going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As usual, lots of reasonable people here in the /. pointing out common sense. Alas in the end nothing will happen, the American public either have too many brainwashed folks, like the one claiming he violated the law regardless even though it is clearly being abused, or the sensible among them are too few to do anything about it. 800+ posts and counting, how fractional digits is that of the American populace?

  140. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Typical+Slashdotter · · Score: 1

    That may be part of it, but it's not the only thing going on. As a huge, clumsy organization with a lot of political baggage, the government sometimes has difficulty organizing itself to find the people they need to get a job done and pay them what they need to be paid. For better or worse (probably worse), it's sometimes it's easier for the government to just put out a contract request and let the contracting companies handle all the dirty HR stuff.

  141. Re:dinner is great here by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

    Complete with Slashdot and Internet access?

  142. Re:More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows about secret and top secret, but there are other levels that don't even have names.

    I am not aware of any evidence for so called "above top secret" programs, and such programs wouldn't even be necessary to protect extraordinarily sensitive information. There are three main mechanisms protecting any piece of classified information:

    Classification level (i.e. confidential, secret, top secret) This is the overall sensitivity of the information and determines how well-vetted someone has to be to have access to it. Compartment Some categories of information which are especially sensitive or have special handling needs will have a named compartment associated with them. Only people who are explicitly "read in" to the appropriate compartment and briefed on these needs will have access. This allows explicit tracking and control of exactly who has access to the information. Need-to-know Beyond these two mechanisms, everyone with knowledge of classified information is supposed to reveal it only to those who need access (in their best judgment) in order to do their jobs.
  143. America was founded by **LIBERTARIAN** ideals by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Liberals and conservatives are not both sides of the same coin. Not at all.

    Yes they are !

    You are confusing republican and democrat with conservative and liberal. The truth is that both democrats and republicans are conservative. Both are the enemy of America, the nation founded on liberal ideals

    Correction:
    The nation of the United States of America was founded on the LIBERTARIAN ideals, not "liberal"

    Before you want to dispute what I've just said, I invite you to re-read all old documents left behind by the founding fathers, old documents such as the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and so on

    When you are re-reading those documents, try putting yourself in the authors' shoes, try feeling what the authors were feeling when they were penning those documents

    The founding fathers fought the British because their liberties were at stake - them Brits were taking away one liberty and the next, until the colonials couldn't stand it no more, that was what has sparked the American Revolution

    All the sacrifices of our forefathers shouldn't be in vain, my friend

    We, the People of the United States, should once again, stand up for OUR LIBERTIES

    If we fail to do that, there will be no more future for our children, and theirs

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:America was founded by **LIBERTARIAN** ideals by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree... in theory.

      Every libertarian ideal with the exception of your economic policy is also a liberal ideal.

      In practice your economic policy provides only theoretical liberty while actually disenfranchising the vast majority of the population and greatly infringing on their liberties. It is also based on an incomplete and ignorant misunderstanding of an abstract model of the free market created by Adam Smith. You libertarians promptly ignore everything else Adam Smith had to say on the subject. He was no advocate of the unrestricted market, he wrote extensively on its risks and flaws.

      In the real world, your ability to exercise your rights is limited by your own means and by the means of the powerful (be they state, corporation, wealthy individual or common thug) to restrict your rights. Correct economic and environmental controls reduce the power of the wealthy to abuse the people while preserving and promoting the general liberties of all.

      And that is the difference, I care about actual liberty for all, you care about the license of the plutocrats to commit tyranny without repercussion.

  144. Looks like a job for Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick somebody throw up the bat-signal!

  145. which attacks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which attacks ? Surely if he blew what might have prevented them, they already happened so it shouldn't be hard to point them out. Oh, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass ?

  146. Isn't anyone sick of our corrupt government? by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

    Exposing our corrupt government doing corrupt things is not a crime and I am sick of hearing people say it is. It is the corrupt officials involved in PRISM that need to be prosecuted. They are the ones who have commintted treason. This is cleary a case of the inmates are running the jail. The wrong people are in control. It started out years ago with a handful of corrupt people. Then it just grew exponentially. More and more corruption. Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, military personnel, Govenor's, Mayor's, Prosecutors,etc. Now pretty much all of them are corrupt. Don't believe it? That was the whole point, their entire goal. Its so big no one believes its real. It is. They are. And we are paying for it. Ours rights are disappearing rapidly. Our privacy is all but gone. Consider this, if they have "witness protection", the abitlity to make someone dissappear and have all the background neccessary to have a entire new life with proof of their past. How hard do you think it is to create the information neccessary to falsely convict someone. Oh quick grab your tin foil hats! No don't bother, its the truth. I wish it wasn't, I honestly do. The barbarians aren't at the gate, they're here.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  147. Of course the government's OWNERS want him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government of the USA is OWNED and its OWNERS don't like being embarrassed so they want to make an example of him just like they did to this fellow:

    http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=934&Itemid=108

    We do not OWN the government. This is government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

  148. Petition to pardon Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already 51% there!

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

    ------------------
    "If we could just send them down the road to secret laws, our battle would soon be won."*
    Osama bin Laden

    *A secret communication sent to me May 2, 2012 [delivered by a secret messenger]

  149. So why is Snowden different than Bradley Manning? by cundare · · Score: 1

    Other than the (obvious & legally important) fact that Manning was sworn to uphold the Military Code of Justice.

  150. Snowden isn't the traitor, our lawmakers are. by kencorey · · Score: 1

    Lawmakers think it's okay to invade the privacy of everyone on the internet. Then they make laws that say citizens are not even allowed to talk about it, so that then they can say "but it's legal". That's not transparency, that's a mafia.

    After all the horrible IT projects gone wrong, the breaches of security, the proof of governmental stupidity, they have the sheer gall to say "Trust us. You can't know what we're doing, but trust us". No matter how wrong they are, if they keep getting more wrong it will somehow work itself out.

    I'd call them fools, but /we/ voted them in. In my book, every single lawmaker currently sitting is responsible for this fiasco. They should all be voted out of office. They've torn up the constitution, and I'm afraid it's too late to get it back.

    I keep waiting for the worst of the dastardly deeds, bad judgement, and horrible decisions to hit from the US government, so that the world can start trusting Americans again, and every year, maybe every month, is another example of how the American government is the worst possible global citizen. Preachy, sanctimonious, hypocritical, tyranical.

    It's shaming to have an American passport at times like this, and now the criminals running the government are screaming that they want Snowden's head. I'd be surprised if he's not already upside down being waterboarded (oh, but not tortured, no...it's even /legal/!)

    Perhaps the scariest thing of all? If I disappear tomorrow, /this/ post is why. I'd never have thought it possible that here in the west I'd have to say that.

  151. A trial by alexo · · Score: 1

    good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.

    He will have a secret trial, by a secret court with secret judges. All evidence will be classified and neither he, nor his defense counsel will be allowed to see it.
    Anything else will compromise national security.

    Come to think of it, he could also suffer a tragic drone accident. That would solve the problem nicely.

  152. Nobel Peace prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should be awarded the above prize to help protect him against his own governments desire to incarcerate him for the rest of his life

  153. Absolutely, every American citizen that cares abou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every American citizen ought to be praising this incredible man as a real hero. The only security he threatened was the choke hold if the government on its people and the fraud and liars that they have become. The "leaker" is the person of integrity and courage here, he is the true American in all this! His life will never be the same and he's about to go through hell - if he makes it that far. I can't believe we as a country haven't taken to the streets and shutdown the government over this now that there is actual proof of how insidious the Patriot Act and all other similar types of legislature that made it through due to the complacency of US citizens. After all, this government is suppose to be owned by the US citizens, the elected officials are public servants to its citizens. God bless this man and let's get behind him lest the government pushes him to suicide by endless harassment like they did to Aaron Swartz. Don't let the latest addition to the "axis of evil" win and continue undoing and making a mockery of everything our constitution is supposed to stand for and supposed to be our backbone when "we the people" fail ourselves. And how ironic that the new addition to the "axis of evil" is now our own country against its own people. I've said it before but it's worth repeating (IMHO) here again:

    If any of this (PRISM) is a surprise to anyone in the US, I've gotta say, what rock have you been hiding under! Seriously people, this didn't just start this week, or on 9/11 but years before. It's only ramping up b/c technology provides such extraordinary capabilities these days and it is only getting better. Not to mention other countries doing this as well. US citizens have been living in a police state and not a democracy for years now. Voter apathy, failing education system, and the majority of Americans prioritizing money over truth, and just giving up on understanding what it means to live and PARTICIPATE in a democratic country is only the beginning of how this all happened. If we stand here and blame the government for this, the next question is WHO PUT THESE PEOPLE INTO OFFICE, who let the Patriot Act pass, who let us go to war over 9/11 and all other wars we've created on other nations instead of cleaning up our own backyard on US soil? Well, if you don't know the answer, it is "WE THE PEOPLE" who are voting (or not) and letting congress know that we either support what they are doing and legislation they are passing or not in a timely manner. So, please, let us all spare each other the shock and dismay that most of us didn't already know that we've been in denial about all this for years and that we knew that this was likely happening right under our noses. I would say the real problem is now we have proof.! So now we can continue sitting on our duffs and say "GASP, I just can't believe it whatever shall we do" and then no one shows up to vote, and everyone goes about their mostly petty little lives and more of the same and we degrade into the hands of countries who do have it together - at least more than we do!

    My sincere regrets for the tone of disgust here, but gimmee a freakin' break! Please know that I am a true optimist-realist and do make the effort to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but even I gotta admit that this entire world is sick sick place of inequity, injustice and massive moral and ethical problems and continued human on human violence and human on every other species violence. It almost seems that it'll be a relief and the saving grace of this God's blue marble when we as a species, finally manage to snuff ourselves out due to all the our sloth, greed and selfishness, etc. that we have let ourselves become.

    Oh and if you think you aren't one of these humans, then you must be running around naked, starving and homeless by fact that if you feed, clothe and shelter yourself you've committed at least 100+ acts of violence against other humans and other species with the buying power of your dollar.

  154. Re:Nobel Peace prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the time of the Vandals and Rome is falling. The senate is too busy drinking wine and leaden water, to give a flying fuck about the common people.

    Snowden is a patriot and deserves the Nobel Peace prize.

    - Jeeves... release the hounds, um the extradition order I mean.
    - Do it yourself you fat lump of shit.

  155. Such a limited quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law."

    The law, of course, being subject to rights arising under the 9th Amendments ("rights retained by the people") and the 10th Amendment ("rights reserved to the people"). Funny how the government almost always seems to forget that limitation in making public statements.

    By definition, rights "retained by the people" are, well, to be obvious about it, retained by the people. This means such rights can not be taken away by the government, by the legal profession, or by the courts. Not even Supreme Court justices can take away such rights and remain in compliance with their oaths to uphold the Constitution, keeping such oaths being a precondition for holding their offices.

    The authority of government to make information classified, and to expect persons to protect it, is limited by any rights that might reasonably be asserted as arising under the 9th / 10th Amendments. For example, a long term right of public oversight over government is certainly a right "retained by the people". Many other such rights can reasonably be proposed. Thus, in this case, the first question that should be asked is whether or not the disclosure is reasonable within the bounds of the 9th / 10th Amendment. Only if it can be shown that the disclosure went beyond reasonable 9th/10th Amendment bounds can the government take legal action.

    Both legal professionals, and members of government, as groups within society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to rights arising under the 9th or 10th Amendments. Thus, these people, have a vested interest in pretending that these Amendments don't exist. Hence showing that the disclosure exceeded reasonable 9th/10 Amendment bounds, without doing so in a manner that can reasonably be considered unethical, will be difficult.

  156. Re:Guess we'll find out ... (or not) by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    Honk Kong has an extradition treaty with the US,

    Yes. With political exemptions.

    And no, I don't know whether those exemptions will apply. His options are limited - while Russia and China (as distinct from HK) might grant him protection it'd probably be dependant upon him providing information as part of his commitment to the arrangement. I suspect his laptop is clean, brain not so much.

    Ecuador is out as joining Assange is putting all your eggs in an unstable basket (Ecuador has the third largest oil reserves in SA - how long before they are "liberated"?). And Iceland while willing would prove difficult to access and the security is debatable as:- it's run by a right-wing government; the economy is weak; while not members of NATO they do have a joint military treaty with the US and the continuing ability to gain access to Iceland and it's communications; Iceland would welcome the US back; Snowden ain't Fisher (and leaking NSA secrets ain't breaking a (minor) economic sanction).

  157. Obama is Bush painted Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is bush painted black. The old boss is the same as the new boss. Until everyone collectively decides to not pay taxes to our overreaching secretive government for a year - there is no hope (call it an annual we don't trust you act - and we don't want to pay). Otherwise it's all just rhetoric - we need to put up or shut up. Wake me up when everybody is willing to do something about it. Then I'll be on board. Until then, it's the same old story and get used to it - stop whining.

  158. Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before passing judgement on Snowden and even Manning for that matter Americans should recall a man who spied on the movements of the legal government troops and participated in a revolution.

    But he is not reviled for treason as I see some of your countrymen in this thread saying this man should be, he is REVEREd as a patriot.

    My American friends, you have thrown off the yoke of oppression once. What's stopping you it again 200 odd years later? Does it need your government to start taxing your Tea?