Slashdot Mirror


Snowden Is Lying, Say House Intelligence Committee Leaders

cold fjord writes "There are new developments in the ongoing controversy engulfing the NSA as a result of the Snowden leaks. From The Hill: 'Emerging from a hearing with NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the senior Democrat on the panel, said Edward Snowden simply wasn't in the position to access the content of the communications gathered under National Security Agency programs, as he's claimed. "He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actual technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do." ... "He's done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated," Ruppersberger said. ... "It was clear that he attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go, which should raise questions for everyone," Rogers added.'" U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has also told the E.U. justice commissioner that media reports surrounding PRISM are wrong: "The contention it [PRISM] is not subject to any internal or external oversights is simply not correct. It's subject to an extensive oversight regime from executive, legislative and judicial branches and Congress is made aware of these activities. The courts are aware as we need to get a court order. ... We can't target anyone unless appropriate documented foreign intelligence purpose for the prevention of terrorism or hostile cyber activities." Meanwhile, Bloomberg has gone live with a report (based on unidentified sources, so take it with a grain of salt) saying that private sector cooperation with snooping government agencies extends far beyond the ones listed in the PRISM report. "Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said." Whatever PRISM turns out to be, the NY Times is reporting that at least Yahoo, and probably other tech companies as well, tried to fight participation in it. Other reports suggest Twitter refused to participate, though there's been no official confirmation.

45 of 749 comments (clear)

  1. Of course. by coId+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!

    --
    Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
    1. Re:Of course. by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't mind the man behind the curtain....

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!

      Funny, you instantly believed a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong to make outlandish claims about surveillance...

    3. Re:Of course. by coId+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Outlandish? We have people getting groped at airports because they want to get on a plane. You call spying in the name of terrorist "outlandish"? Please.

      --
      Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
    4. Re:Of course. by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It says something (sad) about the state of our government when I'll take the word of a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong over that of the government.

      --
      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...
    5. Re:Of course. by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see skepticism, but the 29 year old put a lot on the line and will probably never lead a normal life again, while the the people on the House Intelligence Comity only have to worry about reelection and are unlikely to be all that personally impacted no matter what they say. So I would say their incentive to lie is currently greater.

    6. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please don't mix up tinfoil hatters with actual libertarians. Thanks.

      Yes, an actual libertarian decries the downside of a gigantic government bureaucracy, as well as the need to classify everything as Top Secret, but that doesn't make them act like this.

      A real change for the better in this country is not going to come through some people breaking the law, it is going to come from educating people on what a world without an oppressive government would look like, and how they can make that happen gradually and peacefully.

      Things like this and calls for revolution are just asking for the very real danger of replacing the Bad with the Worse.

    7. Re:Of course. by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Discredit the messenger to distract from the actual message:

      He's a traitor, he's a rapist, people say bad things about him, he's a liar, he supports terrorists, he puts you and your loved ones in danger, you should hate him.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    8. Re:Of course. by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > If you do not trust them, then that is your problem of socialization.
      > And, if you have a problem with socialization, you do not present yourself as someone that the
      > rest of society need to support.

      And if you buy this line of BS, I have a bridge for sale in Manhatten at rock bottom prices, you will make a killing.

      Seriously, if you trust secret government actions, based on secret policies, under the supervision of secret courts, which make secret interpretations of the law, then you have a terrible grasp of history. Power gets abused, period.

      The entire point of the constitution was to put limits on government, serious limits. This sort of action is entirely beyond the pale. Its not like this is our first rodeo. Every time the government gets any sort of power that it has any ability to exercise in secret, it gets abused. If that doesn't happen here then it would be the exception.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:Of course. by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This database should not exist period.

      It doesn't matter what kind of "controls" are in place. The next regime can just ignore those controls. How would we know really? We wouldn't until it's too late.

      This thing should be dismantled and law enforcement should have to go back to begging companies for data when and if they need it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Of course. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!

      I do believe them, actually.

      I believe the specific statements they are making right now ARE true. But these statements are pretty specifically crafted to attempt to draw people's attention from the significant parts of the accustations.

      Did they come out and say "we don't have access to all the data on Google, Microsoft, and Apple servers"? Did they say the secret congressional slideshow was forged or innacurate? No - they said "the claim that we have unfettered access is wrong", and then talked about "extensive oversight". They say "Snowden didn't have clearance for that level of information", not that the information he provided is wrong.

      It is pretty obvious they DO have complete access to all that data - and we already knew about the supposed "oversight" that we're not allowed to even know who is performing or what their directives are.

      Snowden did his country a greater service than these people could ever dream of doing themselves. Hopefully, someday, they or their successors will figure that out.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    11. Re:Of course. by techsoldaten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point, this is not an issue of a lawbreaker. Until he's charged with something in a free and open court, Snowden is not a criminal.

      An Australian general, addressing issues with sexual harassment in the military, had this to say about the values of an organization in a recent video:

      "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QaqpoeVgr8U

      This is a little more apropos for the situation. Someone saw something he felt was unconscionable and acted to try and correct it. This is in keeping with the highest values of ethical conduct, and most ethical scholars would agree people have an obligation to act in this way.

      We will see what Snowden is ultimately charged with. But casting him as a criminal before he is charged with anything, and rushing to judgement about his guilt or innocence, shows a lot less respect for the legal process and rule of law than anything he has done.

    12. Re:Of course. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I fully expect news to surface that he was into drugs, has been accused of sexual assault, a slacker and general no-good person. We already have the slacker/stupid angle (he didn't graduate high-school!). Maybe they can find somebody who said that he smoked pot at some point, and his girlfriend is probably going to be labeled a stripper, or at least her pole-dancing video is the only thing anyone is ever going to mention.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:Of course. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It says something (sad) about the state of our government when I'll take the word of a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong over that of the government.

      Uh, given that many of the most powerful positions within our government are still elected positions, I'd say you're only half right.

      It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.

      And yes, of course it's too late to effect real change. This didn't happen overnight, didn't start with some guy named "Bush", and won't end with some guy named "Obama". That said, it seems that finger pointing creates headlines and generates click revenue these days, so back to our regular two-party mudslinging system we go, ironically in the name of capitalism.

    14. Re:Of course. by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!

      Funny, you instantly believed a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong to make outlandish claims about surveillance...

      You mean the outlandish claim that millions of citizens had their phone "metadata" tracked and compiled by the NSA from Verizon? The outlandish claim that is so outlandish that the government sources actually had to say "Whatcha so upset about? We've been doing it for years!"

    15. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably never lead a normal life again only if you're talking about having no money and living in America. This guy isn't going to go to jail. He'll get a couple million bucks from donations and live happily in Hong Kong. I'm not saying he's lying, all I'm saying is that he has a lot to gain. He has more to gain from this than staying at his job. Both Assange and Manning have received lots of donations. Manning's problem was that he was within reach of the US. Assange has done it properly. He stays at arms length of the US and just pokes them when he needs headlines and cash. Snowden, may be, following in the footsteps of Assange. Get somewhere the US can't get you (China is a very good choice), and then monetize the public's fear of government.

      Again, I'm not saying he's lying. An ulterior motive doesn't automatically mean you aren't telling the truth. I'm just being honest that the guy has a lot to gain. Maybe during the years of the Pentagon Papers he wouldn't be able to live "a normal life again," but the modern day is different. He doesn't need to work; he'll get donations from the anti-government folks and live well.

      And yes, the government has a lot to gain from discrediting the guy, but that doesn't mean it is lying either (although most of slashdot seems to think this line of reasoning is rock solid when used against the government but not anyone else).

      Like most things, the truth is probably in the middle. The government was listening but probably not to the extent he says (either depth or without legal oversight). He bumped up what he says was happening to, amazingly, match anti-government groups worst fears to make the story pop and generate more revenue.

      Last, I know I'll be blasted for being so pro-government, but I personally wouldn't prosecute either Assange, Manning, or Snowden. We don't need 2nd Amendment remedies like the Tea Party wants, what we need is transparency (which Obama has failed completely at). I try to be even handed and tease out what actually occurred, but our government is so messed up mass leaks and information dumps are needed. We need to pull back the veil and disallow government secrecy in all but the most necessary circumstances. Nothing the three leakers did falls into that category. Let them go. The people should demand protections for people who expose the disease.

    16. Re:Of course. by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      The entire point of the constitution was to put limits on government, serious limits.

      And apropos of that, the constitution is the entirety of the legal basis for the government's very existence. Whenever it exceeds the powers granted in the constitution, it is acting without any legal authority.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Of course. by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except they are not spying on terrorists they are spying on everyone.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:Of course. by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It says a hell of a lot more about the apathy and ignorance of the voters who helped create it.

      Yes, certainly this is part of the problem. But there comes a point when a government becomes a completely self-sustaining, mindless, autocratic system whose sole reason for being is to feed upon the country its supposed to serve and become bigger. We're well past that point, and past the point where our government can be steered to correctness simply by voting. Unless you're a large corporate entity with a lot of cash this government really has no use for you, you're fodder, a bug to be smashed by its own huge, lumbering wheels. Voting? Ha, that's just an ancient ritual that we practice becuase our ancestors did it. What would be the purpose of Prism? To prevent terrorism? So far, its not working all that well. All those phone records. Smells to me like a more efficient way of traking a suspect's activities up to the event, provide a chain of evidence that will lock him away easier than keeping Little Billy and Auntie Em safe. And that's what this country does, it puts even more people in prison than any other country in the WORLD. North Korea only has about 1.2 mil in those prison camps. Last figures I saw for incarcerated Americans was approching 2 mil.

      Its interesting to me that they claim to have stopped thousands of terrorist attacks, yet refuse to provide hard data in the name of national defense. Yet they were powerless to prevent the Boston bombings. I wonder what the excuse will be after the next terrorist attack? And remember kids, the best way to perpetuate the status quo is to keep your people under the yolk by setting up a standing emergency (terrorist threats) and keeping the country in a state of perpetual war. Keeps 'm guessing, that's what Pappy always said; "Keep 'm guessing and keep those arrest warrants secret."

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    19. Re:Of course. by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We will see what Snowden is ultimately charged with. But casting him as a criminal before he is charged with anything, and rushing to judgement about his guilt or innocence, shows a lot less respect for the legal process and rule of law than anything he has done.

      Don't be surprised if the government (as it is starting to do already) simply demonizes him but lets him be, as long as he stays out of the country. He's released what he has, and if he hasn't it would do no good to kick the hornets nest again.

      Worst case for the government would be to actually have to put him on trial. They would have no choice but to try him in secret, in a closed court.

      So expect the government to use all of the facilities of the NSA and the FBI to demonize him publicly and track him privately, and perhaps kill him (deniably), all the while telling us what a good job the government could have done to protect us from 9/11 if only their web of universal spying had existed earlier, without ever once mentioning the Boston Marathon which happened under the nose of they spying, even when the Russians warned them ahead of time.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:Of course. by iamgnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it will be history that decides if his actions were correct or not. There is no question (and he doesn't even deny it) that he broke several laws in releasing this information. Since there is no question he broke the law, he is therefore a criminal. He just isn't convicted.

      The question for history to decide is if his actions were the right thing to do and/or if the laws are correct. And really the only way he is viewed by history as anything but a criminal (if he is remembered at all) is if his "side" ultimately wins.

      Our country was founded by a bunch of people that were legally criminals as they broke the laws of the ruling power. They are not remembered as such because they ultimately won their fight and broke with the Crown. Had the revolution failed (or more specifically if it never really started because the majority of the populace was too apathetic about it all) if the founding fathers were remembered at all it would be either a foot note in some legal rulings or as villains that were to be derided (think Guy Fawkes).

      Personally I think laws to prevent critical information being spilled need to exists, but there also need to be protections for people that expose information in a responsible manner to enlighten people about abuses of power. Our country was founded by people that spoke out against an oppressive government and our most basic protected freedom should be to do just that.

      Sadly I think we (the People) are far too accepting of them saying "trust us, it's to stop terrorists" and even if they don't like it most are too apathetic to do anything about it.

    21. Re:Of course. by gclef · · Score: 5, Informative

      criminal:

      n
      1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
      2. a person who commits crimes for a living

      Until he's charged and convicted, he's not a criminal.

    22. Re:Of course. by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Snowden, may be, following in the footsteps of Assange. Get somewhere the US can't get you (China is a very good choice), and then monetize the public's fear of government.

      Again, I'm not saying he's lying. An ulterior motive doesn't automatically mean you aren't telling the truth. I'm just being honest that the guy has a lot to gain. Maybe during the years of the Pentagon Papers he wouldn't be able to live "a normal life again," but the modern day is different. He doesn't need to work; he'll get donations from the anti-government folks and live well.

      He is going to get charged with enough computer misuse to put him away for a long time, and his donations might be seen as "ill gotten gains" that will be frozen by the global banking system (read: the US banking system). Hope he finds a lot of hotels willing to take BTC as payment. As for Assange, you do know he has been living for like a year in a single room in an embassy in Britain, right? He can't even get to Ecuador to lounge on the beach, he has literally not been outside of the building, trapped in "good enough prison" the entire time. Sounds grand, eh?

    23. Re:Of course. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if he isn't given a suitable brutal treatment, it could inspire future leakers. National security demands he not only be caught wherever he may run, but then be given the most blatantly unfair trial possible and subjected to the harshest public punishment to serve as an example to others: Don't screw with the US government, for they don't play by their own rules.

    24. Re:Of course. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is ultimately only one form of authority: Might makes right.

      It was on that authority that the United States was created: By winning a war of independance.

      It is on that authority that all governments stand: For if they cannot grant their laws power by the threat of violence, the laws have no effective existance.

      Try protesting in any oppressive regime and telling the police they have no legal authority to arrest you. You may well be right - even North Korea has a constitution that protects freedom of speech. That won't stop them from throwing you in the gulag to rot, and your closest family for good measure.

    25. Re:Of course. by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It says something (sad) about the state of our government when I'll take the word of a 29-year-old who ran to Hong Kong over that of the government.

      Actually it doesn't even matter whose word we take because the important bit is that the activities of the NSA are now public knowledge. It is impossible to have a debate about the balance of security and civil rights if our civil rights are taken away in secret. To all appearances the NSA has lied to the American people about the scope, method and possibly purpose of their activities.

      I find it astonishing that they think that we would be ok with them gathering data on everyone in secret, storing and analyzing it indefinitely, while being supposedly overseen by a secret "court" which is equally unaccountable. The administration who is in charge of the NSA is basically making the argument that "we passed a law so it is legal" despite having never withstood independent judicial review. No one could challenge the NSA in court because it is impossible to prove standing or harm against something that you cannot prove exists. Congress won't do anything about it for fear of appearing weak on national security during their next election campaign.

    26. Re:Of course. by petteyg359 · · Score: 5, Funny

      keep your people under the yolk

      Yolks are soft and squishy. Those attributes do not make an effective restraint. I'd much rather have a yoke.

    27. Re:Of course. by Zordak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not fabricate information about a surveillance program to slander the current federal government so someone like Ron Paul can be ushered in as the saviour of America? Snowden made quite clear his political leaning after donating to Ron Paul's campaign.

      Except the government hasn't even denied that they are collecting all this information. Their defense has consistently been, "Yes, we're collecting everything about everybody, but we only look at the database with a court order. Trust us." Even if that's true right now, whom do you trust to have that kind of database and never, ever abuse it?

      This whole thing seems like a scandal fabricated to generate page hits or to sling political mud at opponents.

      What opponents? The Washington elite of both parties have lined up to defend this thing and remind us that they need this information to protect us from the big, bad terrorists.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  2. Snowden Is Lying, Say House Intelligence Committee by Bartles · · Score: 5, Informative

    *snicker*

  3. Other Whisleblowers by aeranvar · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... are confirming what Snowden says. I'm certain someone is lying, though.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

  4. Which one is it? by EricWright · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's lying, or he's the worst traitor in the history of the United States. It can't be both. If he's lying, then he didn't reveal any highly classified state secrets.

    Typical gub'mint response. Talking out of both sides of their asses at the same time.

    1. Re:Which one is it? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that the NSA, CIA, whatever other alphabet soup agencies need to disclose everything they do.

      I do. Everything every government agency does should be open to the public. If there's a need for operational security, some secrecy may be appropriate, but it should be extremely limited in scope and duration.

      No one argues that the need for secrecy is warranted in most situations.

      I do. How do you know that the need for secrecy is warranted? Only because those who want the secrecy tell you it is. That's a pretty profound conflict of interest.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. Of Course.. by mengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of Course the Senator knows all about the computers at the contractors to the NSA and what they can do,
    while the guy who used to be a sysadmin there knows nothing about it.

    Uh huh.

    Because we all know that Senators know everything about technology.

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  6. Indeed. by cfsops · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the same, tired refrain. He couldn't possibly do what he claims because it would have to be "approved". Apparently "spy" computers have a small troll that leaps from the machine waving the constitution and wailing in disapproval if ever anyone tries to do something that's not "approved". Clearly it's a feature that works well to prevent abuse. I want one.

  7. Holder?! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Holder says he was lying?! Eric Holder? The attorney general whose office is responsible for Too Big To Jail? Who will not prosecute bankers. Who oversaw the Fast and Furious debacle? Who hounded Aaron Swartz to his death?

    Now I know Snowden was telling the truth.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  8. 2GB per person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have a budget of $4 billion for General Keiths commercial spying. At $100 per TB (overestimate), 10% of their budget is 2GB per person on the internet per year.
    Think of all the data they can keep in 2GB and you see that Keith is lying. No different than when he pretended they didn't collect info on Americans.

    "is not subject to any internal or external oversights is simply not correct."
    We don't care if Bob the spooks approved John the spooks spying on our emails, fuck off. The US Constitution apples and the EU privacy law, and anything else you do is treason.

    "The courts are aware as we need to get a court order."
    And the court orders say "give everything to NSA for 3 months" and is signed by 1 judge in secret. Fuck off.

    "saying that private sector cooperation with snooping government agencies extends far beyond the ones listed in the PRISM report."
    You leaked the SWIFT data, so you've been giving the NSA financial data too, including presumably all the IRS stuff, bank data and all.

    "Whatever PRISM turns out to be, the NY Times is reporting that at least Yahoo, and probably other tech companies as well, tried to fight participation in it. "
    Good for them, Snowden risked his future freedom to leak that, you guys shut up and gave them the data.

    Secret laws and secret judgements run by the military have no place in a democracy. So you're not a democracy. And judging by the fear we see in European politicians, neither is Europe. We all work for the military now. Try not to get shot by the fucking liars.

  9. Credibility by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reality of PRISM is that if the program described exists at all, trying to claim what Holder and Rogers are about oversight does not change the fundamental constitutional problems associated with the programs they are running. You'll notice that there are no credible denials here, just declarations that Snowden is exaggerating and assertions that the existence of oversight on how the data is accessed and used is somehow justification for the data collection in the first place. If the program exists at all, it's either without a warrant or under the exact kind of general warrant the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  10. Tough one by c · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just don't know who to believe.

    A techie who believes what he says enough to basically call out the most secretive, nastiest intelligence agencies of one of the most powerful countries in the world

    or

    a pack of politicians.

    Oh, man, it's difficult. Maybe I should just flip a coin?

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  11. If A, then B; If not B, then not A. by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Snowden lied, then he didn't commit a crime by leaking classified information.

    So, Mr. Rogers (hehehe), why do we currently have a worldwide manhunt - Including calling in favors from our 51st-state lapdogs - For someone who didn't commit a crime?

    You'll forgive me, of course, for presuming you as completely full of shit and trying to salvage your precious unconstitutional spying campaign.

  12. Outlandish? by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 5, Informative
    It might actually seem "outlandish" IF WE HAD NOT BEEN HEARING THE SAME FUCKING THINGS FOR YEARS ALREADY

    Report after report has come out from non-mainstream news sources such was Wired or CNet citing sources with similar stories, like the guy (Mark Klein I think) working for AT&T who discovered the secret room in SF with the NARUS box siphoning off all the Internet traffic to the NSA. Also several ex-NSA employees like William Binney have blown similar whistles.

    Fuck the lies, and wake up. People are tired of the unjustified mission creep that has lead to such horrible violations of our rights. So your paycheck depends on violating your fellow citizens' Constitutional rights? How does that feel? Ever think about honoring your oath to uphold the Constitution? There are plenty of private-sector jobs that pay well enough and don't require violating anyone's rights.

  13. an interesting paradox by phrostie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if it's all lies, then he hasn't revealed any secrets.

    if he hasn't reviealed any secrets, then he hasn't committed treason.

    let see if the US governments actions match their words.

    do they try to arrest him for not revealing secrets?

  14. the slides themselves on their own would have been by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is because he provided HARD EVIDENCE. Power-point slides that explain the scope of the program. He didn't just release all of this stuff on his word. The slides clearly show what is currently existing within the scope of the system and what is forecast for the future. We don't have to believe him. He delivered the proof.

    the slides themselves on their own would have been just slides.

    but - after high level officials tried to do damage control, they're no longer just some slides - they're actual presentations about what the USA government is doing. which gets us to the point that the government didn't even think that authorizing all that was bad or questionable.

    it's the governmental response which provided the proof that they were not just some college boys joke slides.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. Re:Ron Paul? Try the NY freakin' Times by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    9/11 has been used as an excuse for a lot of things that have been going on a lot longer. In fact the appeal to 9/11 is a political cheap shot aimed at convincing the sheep to accept not only the sheering but also the slaughter for the good of the herd.

    I respectfully offer:

    Icebike's invigoration of Godwin's Law:
    In the course of discussion of security, at the expense of liberty, freedom, and privacy, those who first mention the specter of 9/11 or airplanes flying into buildings, have lost their argument and have surrendered all pretense to rational discussion.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  16. Re:What A Fucking Mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the idiot at the Post Office who takes his lunch when there are 30 people in line.

    Cut the guy a break. If he waited till there was no one in line, he wouldn't eat till the day was over.

    Blame the managers for not hiring enough people, but leave the front desk man alone.

  17. Dear Congress... by ZeroPly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... wait, let me start over. What I really meant to say was:

    Dear Shitbags,

    You might have noticed that your latest approval rating is 10%. This is a good example of why that has come to pass. When you repeatedly, emphatically state that every request for information goes through a judge, a sane individual does not assume that a single request consists of THREE TRILLION FUCKING PIECES OF DATA COVERING THE ENTIRE FUCKING US POPULATION.

    You are cretins. I would feel more comfortable if Snowden was on the intelligence committee than any single one of you idiots.

    --
    Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.